tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17810253588551883632024-03-13T23:15:27.200-07:00McGahey's McMusingsthoughts on theology, philly, sports, politics, and musicJames McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.comBlogger345125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-82469640181810352922023-08-25T10:11:00.003-07:002023-08-26T06:55:50.043-07:00"Blessed Are the Pure in Heart" (Matthew 5:8): An Address<p style="text-align: left;"></p><p align="left" style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><h2 style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">
“<span><span style="font-style: normal;">B</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">lessed
Are the Pure in Heart (Matthew 5:8)</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">”<br /></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">24th August 2023<br /></span></span>Calvary
Homes<br />Lancaster,
Pennsylvania</span></span></h2>
<p align="left" style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></p>
<p align="left" style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> I</span><span style="font-style: normal;">srael’s
first king was a magnificent </span><span style="font-style: normal;">physical
</span><span style="font-style: normal;">specimen.
1 Samuel tells us that he was a “handsome young man”</span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span><span style="font-style: normal;">indeed,
that “there was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome
than he; he stood head and shoulders above everyone else” (1 Sam
9:2). And in the early days of his reign, the promise and potential
he had shown seemed to be fulfilled impressively. He won great
military victories, he united the nation, he was humble, and the
Spirit of God was upon him.</span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">But
unfortunately, the story of Saul</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">as
you all know</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ends
as a tragedy. God rejects Saul as king, and so gives the prophet
Samuel the unenviable task of anointing a new king while Saul was
still on the throne. He is sent to the village of Bethlehem to speak
to the family of a farmer and sheep-herder named Jesse, the grandson
of Ruth and Boaz. A</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">nd
so he sets up a sacrifice and invites Jesse’s family to attend </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">(1
Sam 16:5)</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
W</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">hen</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
as the family arrived for the sacrifice, Samuel caught a glimpse of
Jesse’s first son, Eliab</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">big,
strong, rugged</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">he
immediately thought</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">he
should have known better!</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">“Surely
</span></span><span><i>this</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
is the LORD’s anointed” (16:6). But the text says, in verse 7 of
1 Samuel 16, “Do not c</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">onsider
what he looks like</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
or h</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">is</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
height, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not see </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">things
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">as
p</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">eople
do</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">;
they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart”
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">(trans.
JRM).</span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Our
text this morning is from the Gospel of Matthew. It’s a very simple
text: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”
(</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Matt
5:8</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">).
This verse is the sixth of the </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">eight
(or nine)<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote1sym" name="sdendnote1anc"><sup>i</sup></a>
“Beatitudes” recorded by Matthew that i</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ntroduce</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount. </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">In
the context of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">the
Sermon on the Mount f</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">unctions</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
as a </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">précis
or summary of Jesus’ moral vision. The great subject or theme of
Jesus’ teaching and preaching was </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>the
kingdom of God</b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote2sym" name="sdendnote2anc"><sup>ii</sup></a>
the long-anticipated kingdom of the end times in which God would
finally, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">at
long last,</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">fulfill
his ancient covenant promises and </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">manifest
his saving sovereignty for all the world to see. </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Matthew,
by portraying Jesus as </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">going
“up onto the mountain” and “</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">s</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">itting”</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
t</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">here</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(Matt
5:1)</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
i</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ntends
us to see</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
him</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
here as a </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">new
Moses</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
proclaiming his “law” to h</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
people.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote3sym" name="sdendnote3anc"><sup>iii</sup></a>
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
new Torah </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
Jesus</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
the sermon bears out,</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
c</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ompr</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">i</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ses</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">radical
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">w</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ill
of God</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
for men and women w</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ho
would be citizens of tha</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">kingdom</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote4sym" name="sdendnote4anc"><sup>iv</sup></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Right
at the outset</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">―</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
here is where it, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
we will see,</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">potentially
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">gets
tricky </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">for
those of us who a</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">re</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Protestant</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">―</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jesus
delivers a manifesto of sorts. In t</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he
B</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">eatitudes
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">J</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">esus
boldly proclaims</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
who is “in” and who, by implication,</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
“out” of </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
kingdom. Note, if you will, the first and eighth beatitudes: “Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt
5:3); and “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’
sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (5:10). By ending each
of these in the same way, Matthew “sandwiches,” as it were, the
entire section and thereby signals to his readers that all the verses
in between likewise describe the type of people </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
whom the kingdom belongs.</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote5sym" name="sdendnote5anc"><sup>v</sup></a>
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">T</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">hese</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
are the type</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">s</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">people
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">who
are citizens of the kingdom </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">now
</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">who
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">will</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">w</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hen
the kingdom arrives in its fullness, experience </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">all
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
future blessings </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">w</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hich</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
are </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: #212529;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">promised
in the intervening beatitudes.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">This
list of people is an all or nothing list. Even more </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">shocking</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">and,
make no mistake, the Beatitudes were </span></span><span><i>meant</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
to d</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">isturb</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">is
that the list looks nothing like what we, let alone Jesus’ 1st</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> century Galilean audience, would have expected it to look like. </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Look
at who Jesus congratulates:</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, the persecuted</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">in
other words, t</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">he
kinds of people many of </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">their</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
fellow Jews </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">(not
to mention not a few Americans), especially those</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">who
were </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">favorably
disposed to the venerable, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">nationalistic
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">tradition
of zealotry, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">would
have considered “losers</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.”
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">By
contrast, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Jesus
blesses those who </span></span><span><i>di</i></span><span><i>dn</i></span><span><i>’t</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
fight for their own or their nation’s rights, but who instead
look</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ed</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
to God for their help </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">and
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">protectio</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">n</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
and </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">who
waited</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
patiently for God to f</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ulfill
the covenants he had made</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote6sym" name="sdendnote6anc"><sup>vi</sup></a>
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Indeed,
in these </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">v</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">erses
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">J</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">esus
is speaking </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">the
language of </span></span><span><i>eschatological
</i></span><span><i>reversal</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.
For implied </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">in
the Beatitudes </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">is
the notion that </span></span><span><i>other</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">people</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">many
of </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">who</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">m</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
may have assumed their p</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ride
of</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
place in the kingdom to be assured, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">are
</span></span><span><i>not</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
so “blessed.” T</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">hose</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
people, instead of blessing,</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
could </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">instead
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">expect
judgment when the kingdom c</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ame</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote7sym" name="sdendnote7anc"><sup>vii</sup></a></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">At
this point, however, as I mentioned earlier, matters get potentially
tricky for those of us who are Protestants. Indeed, in my youth the
Beatitudes made me somewhat uncomfortable, conditioned as I was by an
evangelicalism t</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">hat</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
took its cues from John and Paul when it came to the doctrine of
salvation. For Jesus here congratulates, not onl</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">y</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
t</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">he</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
poor and oppressed, but </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">also
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">those
who are meek, who are pure in heart, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">who
work for peace, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">who
hunger and thirst for justice, and who themselves show mercy to
others. </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Does
this not look, at first glance, like Jesus is listing so-called </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">moral
and behavioral </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">“entrance
requirements” for the kingdom?<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote8sym" name="sdendnote8anc"><sup>viii</sup></a>
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">My
youthful self instinctively asked, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">What
about John’s call to faith or Paul’s emphasis on grace alone?</span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">As
I came to realize, however, such initial qualms, born of the
i</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">nterpretive</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
lenses through which I read the text, were unwarranted. </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Y</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">es,
i</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">t’s</span></span><span><i>
</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">self-evident
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">that
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">the
Beatitudes contain, at the very least, </span></span><span><i>implicit</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
commands</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">What
makes all the difference, however, is</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
the </span></span><span><i>framework</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
in which </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">we
understand </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">these
implicit exhortations. </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">And
it’</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">s</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
quite clear, if we reflect carefully, that one text in t</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">he
H</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ebrew
Bibl</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">e,
to which th</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">e
first three Be</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">atit</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">udes
allud</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">e,
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">provides
the needed framework.</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
This text is </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Isaiah
61:1-3</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote9sym" name="sdendnote9anc"><sup>ix</sup></a>
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">which
reads:</span></span></span></p>
<p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="background: transparent;"><span style="color: black;">The
spirit of the Lord </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="background: transparent;">God
</span></span><span style="background: transparent;">is upon me,</span></span></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="background: transparent;"><span style="color: black;"> <span> </span><span> </span>because
the </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="background: transparent;">Lord
</span></span><span style="background: transparent;">has anointed me;</span></span></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="background: transparent;"><span>he
has sent me to bring good news to the </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="background: transparent;">poor</span></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="background: transparent;">,</span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <span> </span><span> </span>to
bind up the brokenhearted,</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">to
proclaim liberty to the captives,</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <span> </span><span> </span>and
release to the prisoners;</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="background: transparent;"><span style="color: black;">to
proclaim the year of the </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="background: transparent;">Lord</span></span><span style="background: transparent;">’s
favor,</span></span></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <span> </span><span> </span>and
the day of vengeance of our God;</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">to
comfort all who mourn;</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <span> </span><span> </span>to
provide for those who mourn in Zion—</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <span> </span><span> </span>to
give them a garland instead of ashes,</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">the
oil of gladness instead of mourning,</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> <span> </span><span> </span>the
mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">They
will be called oaks of righteousness,</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
</p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="background: transparent;"><span style="color: black;"> <span> </span><span> </span>the
planting of the </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="background: transparent;">Lord</span></span><span style="background: transparent;">,
to display his glory. </span></span></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; padding: 0in;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="background: transparent;"><span> </span><span> </span>(NRSV,
</span><span style="background: transparent;">alt. JRM</span><span style="background: transparent;">)</span></span></span></span></p>
<p align="left" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; orphans: 2; padding: 0in; widows: 2;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;">I</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">f</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
we read the Beatitudes in this light</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
it becomes </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">quite
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">clear
that the</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ir</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span><span><i>primary</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
purpose is </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">not
to moralize, but</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">rather
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>to
comfort</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
or </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>
console</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Jesus, on the mountain, is not </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">just</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the new Moses; he is a</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">lso
assuming the</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">prophetic</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">role
of Isaiah’s Spirit-anointed herald. And t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">implicit
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">claim
he is making</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is as brazen as it is astounding: </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">his
follower</span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">s,
as they are now</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">―</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">not
those of the other various Jewish factions that existed in
1st-century Palestine</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">―</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">are
the “meek” or “poor”</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
God w</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
going to</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
vindicate against their proud, rich oppressors when God, at long
last, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">inaugurate</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">d</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
his </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">promised
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">kingdom.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> I</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">f
this is so</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">then</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
worry, </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
I once did and some still do,</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
that the Beatitudes list so-called “meritorious virtues” that
qualify people for the kingdom is to bark up the wrong tree</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Instead, the </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Beatitudes</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
describe</span></i><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">men
and women who </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">already</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
have been, in the language of Paul the Apostle, recipients of grace.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote10sym" name="sdendnote10anc"><sup>x</sup></a>
They d</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">escribe
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
p</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">atterns</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of t</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hought</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and behavior that b</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">efit</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the kingdom Jesus was </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">announcing
and</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">even
then,</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
inaugurating in his ministry<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote11sym" name="sdendnote11anc"><sup>xi</sup></a></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
th</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">e</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
sixth Beatitude, Jesus pronounces blessing<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote12sym" name="sdendnote12anc"><sup>xii</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">on
the “pure in heart.” </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
word “heart” is one that, I suppose, most think they understand.
But sometimes I’m afraid that we use it, like other biblical terms,
without thinking very deeply about it. When I was a Bible professor,
at times I heard students grumble something like this: “I’m here
at a Christian college, and I’m getting a lot of ‘head
knowledge,’ but I’m not getting ‘heart knowledge.’” Now, I
think I understand what they meant when they said this. But when the
Bible uses the term “heart,” it means something that </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">embraces</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the head. It means something that embraces the emotions. It means
something that embraces the will. </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
means, really, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>the
core of one’s being</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
or, as Professor Dale Allison put it, “the human principle of
integration.”<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote13sym" name="sdendnote13anc"><sup>xiii</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Proverbs
4:23 says, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow
the springs of life” (NRSV). It’s the heart that controls
everything, for t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he
heart</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>the
center of one’s personality</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
And as Samuel was told that God looks on the heart, we need to remind
ourselves that it is with the </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">heart</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
that God is most concerned, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
that it’</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">s</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
those whose hearts are “pure” (</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">κ</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">αθαρός</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">katharos</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
who are to be congratulated.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> What,
then, does it mean to be “pure?” Well, the word means, basically,
to be “clean.” We all understand something of cleanliness. In
fact, as Americans, cleanliness is something of a c</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ultural</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
obsession. I well remember a story a</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
old seminary professor of mine</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
told of an American basketball player in Italy. This player, because
it was hot in Italy and he was dirty and sweaty, was taking three
showers a day. By doing so he was driving his landlord </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">absolutely
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">crazy,
because, apparently, once a week there was considered sort of the
norm. In fact, in some places it’s not at all uncommon for people
to wash their hair only once a week</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">―</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">whether
they need it or not. Now, we chuckle at that because, as Americans,
we have an obsession with cleanliness. But our cleanliness is just,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
it were, skin deep</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">:
we are </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">fixated
on </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">physical</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
cleansing.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> The
Bible, though, is concerned with two other kinds of cleansing. In the
Old Testament frequently</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">―in
fact, some 500 times―we encounter the distinction between something
or someone being “clean” or “unclean.” You might immediately
think, “well, cleanliness </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">is</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
next to godliness. That proverb is true after all.” But, of course,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
Bible isn’t talking about </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">physical</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
cleanliness or purity at all in these instances. Rather, it’s
speaking of what we might term </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>“</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>external,”
</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>“ritual,”
or “ceremonial” p</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>urity</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">:
one who desired to participate in the worship of God must be ritually
“clean.” And so, if one found herself “unclean” due to
contact with a corpse, or to the birth of a child, or to
menstruation, for example, she had to wait the prescribed time or go
through a certain ritual so as to become “clean” once again. In
Jesus’ day, many Jews </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">were
consumed by their concern with this ritual purity. </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Most
notable among these, of course, were the Pharisees</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">who
in their effort to prepare the people for YHWH’s return to Zion,
sought to extend the holiness </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and,
hence, purity </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
the temple t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hroughout</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the land of Israel as a whole.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote14sym" name="sdendnote14anc"><sup>xiv</sup></a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Already
in the Old Testament, however, this </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">original
notion of “purity” was extended </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">metaphorically
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
refer to interior dispositions, what we might refer to as </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>“i</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>nternal,”
</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>moral,</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>”
or “spiritual” purity.</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
this contrast between </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">moral
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">purity
and ritual purity </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">later
found its way into Mark’s Gospel (Mark 7:14-23) in a story
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">s</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ubsequently</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">taken
up by Matthew </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
chapter 15 of his Gospel</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">There
we read that Jesus said to the crowds</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it
is what comes out of the mouth that defiles … Do you not see that
whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out the
sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and
this is what defiles” (</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Matt
15:11, 17-18, </b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>NRSV</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
Jesus here </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">unambiguous:
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">purity
of heart takes priority over ritual purity. </span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Even
more startling:</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
road to </span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">defilement
is a one-way street</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote15sym" name="sdendnote15anc"><sup>xv</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Interestingly,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">despite
persistent </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">mis</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">perceptions,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jesus
wasn’t alone </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
this assessment. For example, the late New Testament scholar E. P.
Sanders cites the 3rd/2nd century BCE document, </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Letter of Aristeas</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
which states that Jews “</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">honour
God, and this is done not with gifts and sacrifices but with </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">purity
of soul</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(ψυχῆς
καθαρότητι,</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
psych</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">ēs
</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">katharot</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">ēti</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
holy conviction.”<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote16sym" name="sdendnote16anc"><sup>xvi</sup></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Importantly,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
Old Testament authors realized that people could go through the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">all
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">required
ceremonies and yet remain spiritually unclean. The Psalmist, for
example, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">repenting
of his sin, implores God to “create in [him] a</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
clean heart</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">”
(Ps 51:10).<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote17sym" name="sdendnote17anc"><sup>xvii</sup></a></span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Likewise,
Isaiah, in the midst of his </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">famous
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">vision
of God in the temple, cries out, “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a
man of unclean (LXX: ἀκάθαρτα, </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">akatharta</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
lips” (Isa 6:5). The prophet, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">confronted
as he was by God’s transcendent holiness,</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
understood that the prescribed Temple rites were, ultimately, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">only
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">pictures</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of deeper realities. </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">They
themselves</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
could do </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">nothing</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
to change the state of human hearts.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> The
greatest of all illustrations, I think, of the need for moral
cleansing occurs in Shakespeare’s </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">tragedy,
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Macbeth</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Macbeth</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is a Scottish noble, and he and his wife kill good, old King Duncan.
As </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Macbeth</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
comes back from stabbing Duncan in his bed, he is carrying the bloody
daggers and is shaken to the core of his being because he has, of
course, committed murder. And a significant thing happens as he
passes down the hall. It was customary for a nobleman, when somebody
said, “God bless us,” to respond, “Amen.” But when </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Macbeth</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
heard someone say “God bless us” as he was walking down the
hallway, his conscience wouldn’t let him respond. </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">He
realized that sin had cut him off from the blessing of God</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
When he comes to his wife, he is still carrying the daggers. So Lady
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Macbeth</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
rebukes him for holding on to them, and then takes them for herself
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
order </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
frame those who were watching over the king.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote18sym" name="sdendnote18anc"><sup>xviii</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Their
plot at first appears successful, as Macbeth ascends to the throne.
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
after several more murders designed to consolidate Macbeth’s power,</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the sin L</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ady
Macbeth</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
has repressed </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">begins
to work inexorably on her. She is guilty in her heart, and her guilt
begins to affect her mind. </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">One
night, her lady-in-waiting and physician watch her as she walks down
a hall in the castle with a candle in her hand. As she walks, she
stops </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">dead
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
her tracks and </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">proceeds
to </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">rub
her hands, perceiving on them </span></span></span></span><span>a
spot of Duncan’s blood. In anguish she cries out:</span></span></p><p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>Out,
damned spot! Out, I say! … Yet
who
would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him? …
Will these hands ne’er be clean? … Here’s the smell of the
blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little
hand.</span><a class="sdendnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8246964018181035292#sdendnote19sym" name="sdendnote19anc"><sup>xix</sup></a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> </span></p><h1 style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">It’s
a very gripping scene, for the physician, when he recognizes what has
happened, says, “This
disease is beyond my practice … More needs she the divine than the
physician. God, God forgive us all.”<span><a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote20sym" name="sdendnote20anc"><sup>xx</sup></a></span></span></h1>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Y</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">es,
w</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hat
Shakespeare p</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ortrays
in the “Scottish Play,” Scripture</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
consistently affirms to be the universal human condition: </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">sin
has penetrated to the deepest recesses of our hearts.</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
For example, the prophet Jeremiah observes that “The heart is
deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it”
(Jer 17:9, NIV). Now this puts us on the horns of a dilemma, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">does
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">it
not</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">?</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
On the one hand, Jesus congratulates the </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">pure</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
in heart. On the other hand, all of us are by nature </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">impure</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
in heart. W</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">e
see, then, that the heart</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
isn’t just the seat of our personality. It’s the seat of </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">our
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">troubles</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
as well.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> I</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">f
this is true, then what</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
does Jesus mean when he speaks </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">here
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
a </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">pure
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">heart?
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Throughout
church history there have been various suggestions.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote21sym" name="sdendnote21anc"><sup>xxi</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">One
dominant thread, from the ancient church all the way through the
unfortunate 21st</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> century evangelical </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">emphasis
on</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
“purity culture,” has been to understand such purity to refer to
a lack of contamination from sinful </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">desires</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
in particular sexual desires―hence, </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">chastity</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">what
I would consider </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">an
unhealthy emphasis on asceticism.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote22sym" name="sdendnote22anc"><sup>xxii</sup></a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Yet
this is unlikely to be the sense intended </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">here
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
Matthew 5:8. For Matthew’s language </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">i</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
this beatitude</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">clearly
echoes that of </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Psalm
24:3-6</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">There
we read:</span></span></span></span></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"></h4><h4 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Who
shall ascend the hill of the </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Lord</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">?</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span> </span><span> </span>And
who shall stand in his holy place?</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Those
who have clean hands and pure hearts,</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span> </span><span> </span>who
do not lift up their souls to what is false</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span> </span><span> </span>and
do not swear deceitfully.</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">They
will receive blessing from the </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Lord</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span> </span><span> </span>and
vindication from the God of their salvation.</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Such
is the company of those who seek him,</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span> </span><span> </span>who
seek the face of the God of Jacob. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(NRSV)</span></span></span></span></p></h4></blockquote>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>W</span><span>e
also m</span><span>ay
discern</span><span>
that</span><span>
the Sermon on the Mount i</span><span>tself
</span><span>later
fleshes out what cleanness or purity of heart entails. </span><span><b>Matthew
6:1-18</b></span><span>,
</span><span>for
example, develops the necessity of a piety unconcerned with outward
show and wholly directed towards God. </span><span><b>Matthew
6:19-21 </b></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">directly
correlates the state of a </span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">person’s</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
heart with what t</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">hat</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
person treasures. And </span></span><span><b>Matthew
</b></span><span><b>6:24</b></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
famously disallows the possibility of serving both God and money
simultaneously. </span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">Our
Lord’s brother James </span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">also
</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">m</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">ay
reflect knowledge of</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
this beatitude<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote23sym" name="sdendnote23anc"><sup>xxiii</sup></a>
when he writes, “</span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Make</span></i></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
your h</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">ands</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">clean</span></i></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(</span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">καθαρίσατε</span></i></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">χεῖρος</span></span><span><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">katharisate
</span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">cheiras</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),
you sinners, and purify </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">your
hear</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ts
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ἁγνίσατε
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">καρδίας</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">hagnisate
</span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">kardias</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),
you </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">double-minded
(δίψυχοι, </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">dipsychoi</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>James
4:8</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
trans. JRM)</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote24sym" name="sdendnote24anc"><sup>xxiv</sup></a>
</span></span></span>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">A
pure heart, in other words, is a </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">heart</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
that seeks God alone, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
heart </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">whose
allegiance is directed exclusively to God, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
heart that accordingly</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
devotes itself to </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">G</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">od’s
priorities</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
19</span></span></span><sup><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">th</span></span></span></sup><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
century Danish philosopher-theologian Søren Kierkegaard nicely
summed up what is meant in his </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">1847
work entitled </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Purity
of Heart Is to Will One Thing</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote25sym" name="sdendnote25anc"><sup>xxv</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
pure heart, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
St. Augustine put it,<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote26sym" name="sdendnote26anc"><sup>xxvi</sup></a></span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is the s</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ingle</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
heart, unalloyed by the destabilizing influence of </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">i</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">dolatry</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and self-seeking.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
problem remains, however. How </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
it that</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">these
“pure in heart” people, p</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">eople</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
whose hearts are totally directed toward God,</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
become</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
pure in heart?</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Once
again, the Old Testament provides a clue, for there we learn that it
is </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">God</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
who alone can change the heart. </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Quite
a few times there we find the call for the people to “circumcise”
their hearts.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote27sym" name="sdendnote27anc"><sup>xxvii</sup></a>
But, as so often in the Bible, the “ought” does not imply </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">corresponding
“can.”</span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Mose</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">s,
who called on the people to circumcise their hearts in Deuteronomy
10, understood this. After forty </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">torturous
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">years
of dealing with Israel in the wilderness, he is sadly aware that the
people’s heart is not right with God. In his closing remarks to the
people, in Deuteronomy 29, he wistfully says, “But to this day the
LORD has not </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">given</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear” (</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Deut
29:4, </b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>NRSV</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
H</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">owever</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
in the same speech, </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
Deuteronomy 30, </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he
looks forward to a time, on the other side of judgment and exile,
when “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">…</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with
all your soul, in order that you may live” (</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Deut
30:6, </b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>NRSV</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
The Hebrew prophets later pick up on this hope. The exilic prophet
Ezekiel, in particular, points to this day in chapter 36 of his
prophecy, where God promises, “A new heart I will give you, and a
new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove from your body
the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Ezek
36:26, </b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>NRSV</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
</span></span></span>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span> </span><span>It’</span><span>s</span><span>
the uniform testimony of the New Testament, reflected in Jesus’
beatitude in Matthew 5:8, that this promise of a new heart has found
its fulfillment in and through Christ. One of the great texts of the
Bible is found in Acts 15, where the apostles gather in Jerusalem to
discuss the terms of Gentile inclusion in the people of God. At issue
was whether or not they had to be circumcised to join the covenant
people of Israel. After much d</span><span>ebate</span><span>,
Peter got up and said:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>My
brothers, you know that l</span><span>ong
ago</span><span>
God made a choice among you that t</span><span>he
Gentiles</span><span>
would hear </span><span>from
my mouth </span><span>the
message of the g</span><span>ospel</span><span>
and become believers. And God, who knows the heart, testified f</span><span>or</span><span>
them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and </span><span><i>i</i></span><span><i>n</i></span><span><i>
p</i></span><span><i>urifying</i></span><span><i>
their hearts by faith</i></span><span>
</span><span>(</span><span>καθαρίσας</span><span>
</span><span>τὰς</span><span>
</span><span>καρδὶας
αὐτῶν, </span><span><i>katharisas
tas kardias autōn</i></span><span>)</span><span>,
he has made no distinction between them and us. </span><span>(</span><span><b>Acts
15:7-9</b></span><span>,
trans. JRM).</span></span></p></blockquote>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i>H</i><i>e
purified their hearts by faith</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.
In other words, through Christ and his work on the cross, the wait
for the new heart is over. A</span><span style="font-style: normal;">s
a result, </span><span style="font-style: normal;">those</span><span style="font-style: normal;">
who believe in Christ a</span><span style="font-style: normal;">re</span><span style="font-style: normal;">
purified from sin and receive the Spirit of God as the </span><span style="font-style: normal;">effective
</span><span style="font-style: normal;">agent
b</span><span style="font-style: normal;">oth
of </span><i>inner renewal</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
and </span><i>ongoing
purification</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote28sym" name="sdendnote28anc"><sup>xxviii</sup></a></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> I</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">n
C. S. Lewis’s </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">children’s
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">novel,
</span></span><span><i>The
Voyage of the Dawn Treader</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
there’</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">s</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
a little boy named Eustace Scrubb who, because he stole a bracelet
from a dragon’s lair, is turned into a dragon himself. E</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ustace
then</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
meets Aslan the Lion, who shows him a well that he can go to to get
washed. But first he had to undress. The problem was that, after
working long and hard to remove his scaly suit, the scales grew back
immediately. After two more unsuccessful attempts, finally Aslan says
to him, “You will have to let </span></span><span><i>me</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
undress you.” So Eustace lies down, and Aslan proceeds to tear his
claws into him right into his heart, and the scales come off,
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">painfully,</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
one layer at a time. The boy then g</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">oes</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
to the w</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ell</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
t</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">akes</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
a dip in it, and c</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">omes</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
out with a brand new set of clothes.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote29sym" name="sdendnote29anc"><sup>xxix</sup></a></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><span style="font-style: normal;">What
Lewis is picturing for us, rather transparently, is the fact that we,
as sinful humans, can’t change ourselves. It is </span><i>God</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
who must change us. Jesus says, “Blessed are the pure in heart.”
But to </span><i>be</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
pure in heart, one must </span><i>first</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
have their hearts purified by the finished work of Christ.</span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">Our
text in Matthew goes on to tell us what benefit will accrue to those
who are pure in heart. </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">It
says the pure in heart</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―those
whose hearts have been purified and are, consequently, turned
exclusively to God―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
will </span></span><span><i>see
God</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.
</span></span><span><i>T</i></span><span><i>heir
good fortune </i></span><span><i>is
that they will experience the </i></span><span><i>beatific
vision, the </i></span><span><i>vision
of God</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> What
this “vision” will entail</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">and
whether or not it can be attained, if only in part, in the present
world</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">―</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">is
a matter of perennial dispute and speculation.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote30sym" name="sdendnote30anc"><sup>xxx</sup></a>
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">This
isn’t surprising, for </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">the
Bible seems to speak out of both sides of its mouth </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">on
the matter.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote31sym" name="sdendnote31anc"><sup>xxxi</sup></a>
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">On
the one hand, the Bible s</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ays
it is impossible for human beings to see God</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">.
People in ancient Israel, </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">who
no doubt conceived </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">of
their God in embodied form,<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote32sym" name="sdendnote32anc"><sup>xxxii</sup></a></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
longed to get a glimpse of God. Moses, for example, who had already
seen YHWH </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">indirectly
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">in
the form of a burning, inextinguishable bush (</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Exod
3:1-12</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),
asked God </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
Exodus 33 </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
show him his glory</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Exod
33:18</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).The
Lord, however, in no uncertain terms, responded by saying that </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">no
one</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
could “see him” and “live” (</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Exod
33:20</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
New Testament </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">goes
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">even
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">further.
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">1
Timothy t</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ells
us</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
that God is “invisible” (</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ἀόρτος</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
</span></span><span><i>aortos</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">)
(</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>1
Tim 1:17</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">)<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote33sym" name="sdendnote33anc"><sup>xxxiii</sup></a>
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">and
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">that
he </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">dwells
in “unapproachable (</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ἀ</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">π</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">ρό</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">σι</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">τος,
</span></span><span><i>aprositos</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">)
light” (</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>1
Tim 6:16</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote34sym" name="sdendnote34anc"><sup>xxxiv</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">John
even makes the claim that “</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">no
one</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
has ever seen God.” </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
him, only </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jesus,
the “unique” or “only begotten” </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">one</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">himself
God by nature</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">μονογνὴς
θεὸς, </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">monogen</span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">ē</span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">s
theos</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
has revealed and expounded h</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">im</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>John
1:18</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">back
in Exodus, in response to Moses’s petition</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
God condescended and allowed the prophet a glimpse―a backward
glance, as it were―of his “goodness” and “glory” after he
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">had
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">passed
by. But even here Moses had to be covered </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">by
God’s “hand” </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
stand in the cleft of a rock (</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Exod
33:19-23</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Yet,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">on
the other hand,</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he
Bible</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">also</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
holds out the possibility, indeed the </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">promise</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
of seeing God.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote35sym" name="sdendnote35anc"><sup>xxxv</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Particularly
important h</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ere</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
are those texts in the Psalms in which the Psalmist anticipates going
up to the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">emple
to “see” </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
“face of</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
God” </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">or
behold his “beauty” there</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote36sym" name="sdendnote36anc"><sup>xxxvi</sup></a>
Among these </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">texts
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
o</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ne
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that,
as we have seen, serves as the basis of our b</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">eatitude,
namely</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Psalm
24:3-6</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">:
“</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Who
shall ascend the hill of the LORD? … Those who have clean hands and
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">pure
hearts</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
… They will receive blessing from the LORD … Such is the company
of those who seek him, who </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">seek
the face of the God of Jacob</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.”
If indeed these </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Psalm
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">texts
provide the background for w</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hat
Jesus is saying</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote37sym" name="sdendnote37anc"><sup>xxxvii</sup></a>
it suggests </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
us </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
the notion of “seeing God” speaks, at the very least, of
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">experiencing
God</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">intimately
</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">perceiving
his presence</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">emple,
God’s dwelling place</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">With
this in mind, I turn your attention </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
closing </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
the final book of the Bible, where John the Theologian </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
Revelation 21-22 </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">provides
us with a magnificent vision of the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ew
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">h</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">eavens
and </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ew
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">e</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">arth,
where the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ew
Jerusalem </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">comes
down out of heaven (</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Revelation
21:1-22:5</b></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
city is described as cubic in shape (21:16)</span></span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What
this symbolizes becomes clear when we remember that </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">original
Holy of Holies </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">was
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
cube </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(1
Ki 6:20), and </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ezekiel
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">likewise
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">pictures
the new, eschatological temple </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">s</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ame
way</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(Ezek
45:2).<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote38sym" name="sdendnote38anc"><sup>xxxviii</sup></a>
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
i</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
John’s vision </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">on
Patmos</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ew
Jerusalem</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
had no temple</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">because
its sanctuary (νάος,</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
naos</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">was
“God the All-Powerful” (ὁ θε</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ὸς
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ὁ
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">παντοκράτωρ,</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
ho theos ho pantokratōr</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
and the Lamb (τὸ ἀρνίον, </span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
arnion</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
(Rev 21:22). Indeed, the v</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ision</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of the descent of the </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ew
Jerusalem suggests that the entire new earth is </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">to
be </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
vast </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">emple,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
that God’s presence fully suffuses the eternal home of God’s
people.<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote39sym" name="sdendnote39anc"><sup>xxxix</sup></a>
Most remarkably, however, God’s people t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hemselves
are portrayed as</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
priests</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
serving in this eternal </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">emple;
for, as John writes</span></span></span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
“They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads</span></i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">”
(Rev 22:4).<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote40sym" name="sdendnote40anc"><sup>xl</sup></a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
is our hope, </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">vision
of God―the d</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">irect</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">unmediated
perception and experience of God, of being known even as we are now
known (1 Cor 13:12),<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote41sym" name="sdendnote41anc"><sup>xli</sup></a>
and of being transformed to being like he is (1 John 3:2).<a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote42sym" name="sdendnote42anc"><sup>xlii</sup></a>
We have this hope </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">vouchsafed
to us by Jesus himself in his promise that the pure in heart shall
see God. </span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">More
than half a century ago t</span></span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">he
late British New Testament </span></span></span></span><span>scholar
George Bradford Caird wrote:</span></span></p><p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>The martyrs have protested, ‘If only we knew how it was all going to end’. And this is the
true end of man, the beatific vision, which is also the transforming vision; for those who
enjoy it bear his name stamped on their foreheads, because they have also come to bear
the impress of his nature on their lives.</span><a class="sdendnoteanc" href="#sdendnote43sym" name="sdendnote43anc"><sup>xliii</sup></a></span></blockquote>
<p style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">What
a day that shall be! To God alone be the glory.</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;">
<span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<hr />
<div id="sdendnote1"><p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote1anc" name="sdendnote1sym">i</a><span> The
eight primary beatitudes (Matt 5:3-9) are bound together by an
<i>inclusio, </i><span style="font-style: normal;">with the first and
eighth ending with the identical, “for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven,” the present tense ἐστιν (</span><i>estin</i><span style="font-style: normal;">)
contrasting with the future tense in each of the promised blessings
in the intervening verses. The ninth apparent beatitude (5:11-12),
not only is much longer and addressed to “you” rather than third
person objects as in verses 3-9, but also is an expansion of the
beatitude addressed to those “persecuted for righteousness’
sake” in verse 9. Interestingly, this same pattern of pithy
beatitu</span><span style="font-style: normal;">d</span><span style="font-style: normal;">es
</span><span style="font-style: normal;">followed by a much longer
one at the conclusion of the list is also found in a fragment of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q525; text found online
@http://nextstepbiblestudy.net/index.php/tag/4qbeatitudes/).</span></span></span></p>
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote2anc" name="sdendnote2sym" style="font-family: times;">ii</a><span style="font-family: times;"> On
the kingdom of God, still classic is George Eldon Ladd, </span><i style="font-family: times;">The
Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism </i><span style="font-family: times;">(Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). Cf. Also N. T. Wright, </span><i style="font-family: times;">Jesus and
the Victory of God </i><span style="font-family: times;">(Christian
Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1996) esp. chapters 6-10.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote2">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote3anc" name="sdendnote3sym" style="font-family: times;">iii</a><span style="font-family: times;"> Gk.
ἀνέβη
εἰς
τὸ
ὄρος
(contrast Luke 6:17,
which states that Jesus “stood on a level place” [ἔστη
ἐπὶ τόπου
πεδινοῦ]).
Note this phrase is found
multiple times in the LXX of Moses ascending Sinai (e.g., Exod 19:3;
24:15, 18; 34:4). For “sitting” as the posture of an
authoritative teacher, not least that assumed by the rabbis, cf.
Matt 13:2; 15:29; 23:2; 24:3; 26:55; Luke 4:20; Eusebius, </span><i style="font-family: times;">Historia
ecclesiastica</i><span style="font-family: times;">
5.20; </span><i style="font-family: times;">m. ‘Abot
</i><span style="font-family: times;">1.4.
</span><span style="font-family: times;">On</span><span style="font-family: times;">
the Moses typology
involved here, cf. esp.
Dale C. Allison, Jr., </span><i style="font-family: times;">The
New Moses: A Matthean Typology</i><span style="font-family: times;">
(Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & S</span><span style="font-family: times;">t</span><span style="font-family: times;">ock,
2013) </span><span style="font-family: times;">172-80</span><span style="font-family: times;">.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote3">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote4anc" name="sdendnote4sym" style="font-family: times;">iv</a><span style="font-family: times;"> It
is not insignificant that
Matthew distinguishes between the “crowds” and his “disciples,”
and makes clear that the addressees
of the sermon were the latter (Matt 5:1-2; cf. also Luke 6:20; note
that Luke places his “Sermon on the Plain” immediately following
Jesus’ choice of twelve apostles [Luke 6:12-16]).</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote4">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote5anc" name="sdendnote5sym" style="font-family: times;">v</a><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;">Gk.
αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
Dale Allison suggests that the present tenses are futuristic
presents, meaning that the outcome of the final judgment is here
being announced by Jesus: the poor and the persecuted “will be
given the kingdom” (</span><span style="font-family: times;">W.
D. Davies and Dale Allison, Jr., </span><span style="font-family: times;"><i>A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel </i></span><span style="font-family: times;"><i>a</i></span><span style="font-family: times;"><i>ccording
to Saint Matthew</i></span><span style="font-family: times;">,
3 vols. </span><span style="font-family: times;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97</span><span style="font-family: times;">]</span><span style="font-family: times;">
1:4</span><span style="font-family: times;">45.
I am inclined, however, to believe the present tenses in these
verses deliberately contrast with the future tenses in verses 4-9,
and that Matthew is playing on the “already/not yet” character
of he kingdom in Jesus’ ministry, and in New Testament theology
more generally. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Yes,
such people </span><span style="font-family: times;"><i>will</i></span><span style="font-family: times;">
be given the kingdom, but they </span><span style="font-family: times;"><i>already
</i></span><span style="font-family: times;">are,
as it were, citizens of the kingdom and participate in the blessings
associated with its irruption into the world in the midst of the
present age.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote5">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote6anc" name="sdendnote6sym" style="font-family: times;">vi</a><span style="font-family: times;"> Cf.
Richard B. Hays, </span><i style="font-family: times;">The Moral Vision of the New Testament:
Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New
Testament Ethics </i><span style="font-family: times;">(San
Francisco: Harper, 1996) 97: “The counterintuitive paradoxes of
the Beatitudes alert us to the fact that Jesus’ new community is a
contrast society, out of synch with the ‘normal’ order of the
world.” </span><span style="font-family: times;">An instructive
contrast to Jesus’ Beatitudes are those found in the Book of
Sirach (ca. 200-170 BCE), </span><span style="font-family: times;">in
</span><span style="font-family: times;">which </span><span style="font-family: times;">ben
Sira </span><span style="font-family: times;">conventionally asserts
the blessedness of those who seek wisdom, obey the Torah, and have a
healthy home life (</span><i style="font-family: times;">Sir. </i><span style="font-family: times;">14:20-27;
25:7-11). Cf. Scot McKnight, </span><i style="font-family: times;">Sermon on the Mount</i><span style="font-family: times;">
(The Story of God Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013)
34-36.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote6">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium; font-style: normal;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote7anc" name="sdendnote7sym">vii</a> </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., Matthew 8:11-12. Indeed, the rhetorical opposite of “blessing” is that of “woe” or of being
“cursed.” Cf. Matt 23, where Jesus pronounces “woe” on the scribes and Pharisees seven (!) times.
Many, going back to Johann Albrecht Bengel in his famous Gnomon in the 18th century, have posited
a correlation between the Beatitudes and the woes of chapter 23. See., e.g., N. T. Wright, <i>The New
Testament and the People of God</i> (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992) 386-87. On the theme of eschatological reversal implicit in the Beatitudes, see James
D. G. Dunn, <i>Jesus Remembered</i> (Christianity in the Making, vol. 1; Grand Rapids and Cambridge,
Eerdmans, 2003) 412-14; Ulrich Luz, <i>Matthew 1-7</i> (trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2007) 190.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote7">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote8anc" name="sdendnote8sym">viii</a> The
language comes from Robert A. Guelich, “The Matthean Beatitudes:
‘Entrance Requirements’ or Eschatological Blessings?” <i>JBL</i>
95 (1976) 415-34. Guelich argues for the latter option.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote8">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote9anc" name="sdendnote9sym">ix</a> <span>On
this, cf. esp. D</span><span>avies
and Allison,</span><span><i>
Matthew</i></span><span>,</span><span><i>
</i></span><span>1:436-39.
Cf. Matt 11:5 and Luke’s </span><span>programmatic
use of the text in Jesus’ introductory synagogue reading at
Nazareth in Luke 4:16-21.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote9">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote10anc" name="sdendnote10sym">x</a> <span>On
the function of the Beatitudes in placing “grace” before
“imperative” and “blessing” before “demand,” cf. Davies
and Allison, </span><span><i>Matthew</i></span><span>,
1</span><span>:439-40</span>.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote10">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote11anc" name="sdendnote11sym">xi</a> Cf.
N. T. Wright, <i>After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters</i>
(New York: HarperOne, 2010) 103: “<i>God’s
future is arriving in the present, in the person and work of Jesus,
and you can practice, right now, the habits of life which will find
their goal in that coming future</i>”
(italics
his).</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote11">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote12anc" name="sdendnote12sym">xii</a> Because
of the archaic and fusty nature of the term “blessed,” not a few
translators and writers have attempted to substitute various other
locutions for it for translating μακάριος (<i>makarios</i>).
One of the least happy of such alternatives is indeed the term
“happy” itself. Not only does the term “happiness” in modern
English connote a <i>feeling</i>
or psychological, existential state tied to what we may refer to as
“happenings;” the term, for Americans, inevitably recalls
the words of Thomas Jefferson, for whom the pursuit of happiness is
an “unalienable” right bequeathed to us by our Creator. But the
“happiness” of the Beatitudes, reflecting the Hebrew term <i>’āšrê</i>,
speaks
of a person’s <i>eschatological
situation</i>.
Jesus here is <i>congratulating</i>
these people for the <i>fortunate
position</i>
they find themselves in. Though at present they may be the poor and
oppressed, Jesus provides consolation by assuring them of their
future vindication in the kingdom which was, even then, breaking
in
as a mustard seed.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote12">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote13anc" name="sdendnote13sym">xiii</a> Dale
C. Allison, <i>The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral
Imagination</i> (Companions to the
New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1999) 51. Cf.
F. Baumgärtel
and J. Behm, <i>TDNT</i>
3:605-14; BDAG, 508-09; A. Sand, <i>EDNT</i>
2:249-51.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote13">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote14anc" name="sdendnote14sym">xiv</a> Cf.
Emil Schürer, <i>The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ</i>.
Revised and edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, 4 vols.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87) 2:396-400.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote14">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote15anc" name="sdendnote15sym">xv</a> Interestingly,
Matthew does not include Mark’s parenthetical comment, “Thus
Jesus declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19), a perspective later
implied in Acts 15 and stated cryptically in Titus 1:15 (“To the
pure all things are pure”). Matthew’s omission certainly fits
the context of Jesus’ ministry―he
hardly would have advocated ignoring the Torah’s explicit
commands―and likely
reflects his intended audience of Jewish Christians who, even in the
years after 70 CE, would certainly have, by and large, continued to
keep the Torah as part of their Christian identity. On the history
behind the passages, cf. Dunn, <i>Jesus Remembered</i>,
573-77.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote15">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote16anc" name="sdendnote16sym">xvi</a> <i>Ep.Arist.</i>
234. Cf. E. P. Sanders, <i>The
Historical Figure of Jesus</i>
(London: Penguin, 1993) 219. Interestingly,
Sanders―to
highlight the parallel with Jesus?―replaces Aristeas’s “soul”
with “heart” in his translation. To
be sure, Matthew’s Jesus polemically
excoriates
his most significant critics, the Pharisees, for
their emphasis on―indeed, <i>intensification
of</i>―the
Torah’s ritual demands in comparison to what he considered their
<i>relative
neglect</i>
of what he termed “the weightier matters of the Law,” i.e.,
justice, mercy, and faith (Matt 23:23;
cf. 9:10-13). They “strained out a gnat” before drinking wine―in
obedience to the command of Leviticus
11:20-23―but were oblivious to
their willingness to swallow the equally unclean, and infinitely
larger, camel (23:24; it is likely that Jesus’ absurdist witticism
was made even more memorable in its historical context by means of a
play on the Aramaic words for “gnat” [<i>qalmâ</i>]
and “camel” [<i>galmâ</i>]).
Likewise, in the very next “woe,” he accuses them,
metaphorically,
of scrupulously cleaning the outside of plates and cups, but failing
to do the same to the insides, which were “full
of greed and self-indulgence” (23:25). The point is concisely
articulated by R. T. France: “Ritual purity without moral
cleanness is a sham” (<i>The
Gospel of Matthew</i>
[NICNT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007] 875).
As for the Pharisees themselves, they would have viewed their
meticulous observance of the ritual commandments to be the necessary
<i>outworking </i>or
<i>expression</i>
of a pure heart.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote16">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote17anc" name="sdendnote17sym">xvii</a> LXX
Ps 50:12 (<b>καρδίαν καθαρὰν</b> κτίσον ἐν
ἐμοί ὁ θεός)</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote17">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote18anc" name="sdendnote18sym">xviii</a> Shakespeare,
<i>Macbeth</i>, II.2.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote18">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote19anc" name="sdendnote19sym">xix</a> Shakespeare,
<i>Macbeth</i>, V.1.31, 35-36, 39,
45-47.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote19">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote20anc" name="sdendnote20sym">xx</a> Shakespeare,
<i>Macbeth</i> V.1.53, 68-69.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote20">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote21anc" name="sdendnote21sym">xxi</a> For
a concise, selective account of the history of interpretation, cf.
Rebekah Eklund, <i>The Beatitudes through the Ages</i>
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021) 196-213.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote21">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote22anc" name="sdendnote22sym">xxii</a> For
example, the late 2nd century apocryphal work, <i>Acts of
Paul and Thecla</i>, has an
extended commentary of sorts on Jesus’ beatitude, in which he
interprets the blessed as “those who have kept the flesh chaste”
(οἱ ἁγνὴν τὴν
σάρκα τηρήσαντες)
and “the self-controlled”
(οἱ ἐγκρατεῖς).
Cf. Jeremy B. Barrier, “A
Critical Introduction and Commentary on the <i>Acts of Paul
and Thecla</i>” (Ph.D. diss.,
Texas Christian University, 2008) 119-26.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote22">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote23anc" name="sdendnote23sym">xxiii</a> <span>James
here clearly alludes to Psalm 24:4, but it seems a stretch to
imagine that he and Matthew/the oral tradition behind the “M”
texts in his Gospel, drew upon the psalm independently. Assuming a
date for Matthew some time after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and
the Jacobean authorship of the Book of James (or at least the
letter’s contents which were later edited), since James the Just
was killed in 62 CE (Josephus, </span><span><i>Ant.
</i></span><span>20.200),
this means that James </span><span>would
have drawn</span><span>
from the pre-literary form of the Jesus tradition, from which
Matthew also later drew in composing his beatitude.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdendnote23">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote24anc" name="sdendnote24sym">xxiv</a> The
term δίψυχος,
literally “two-souled,” is not found in extant Greek literature
prior to James. For the Jewish/Old Testament background of the term,
cf. Peter H. Davids, <i>The
Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text</i>
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 74-75.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote24">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote25anc" name="sdendnote25sym">xxv</a> Søren
Kierkegaard, <i>Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing</i>,
trans. Douglas V. Steere, rev.
ed. (New
York: Harper Brothers, 1948
[1847]). Cf. Clifford
Williams, <i>The Divided Soul: A Kierkegaardian Exploration</i>
(Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2008).</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote25">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote26anc" name="sdendnote26sym">xxvi</a> St.
Augustine of Hippo, <i>On the Sermon on the Mount</i>,
trans. William Findlay (Jazzybee
Verlag: Altenmünster,
Germany, 2017 [1830]) 1.8: “For that is a pure heart which is a
single heart.”</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote26">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote27anc" name="sdendnote27sym">xxvii</a> Deut
10:16; Jer 4:4. The implication, of course, is that the people of
Israel, though circumcised in the foreskin, were uncircumcised of
heart (Jer 9:25-26).</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote27">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote28anc" name="sdendnote28sym">xxviii</a> The
notion of Christ’s work
“purifying” his people is found in a broad range of New
Testament documents. Cf. Tit 2:14; Heb 9:14; 1 John 1:7.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote28">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote29anc" name="sdendnote29sym">xxix</a> C.
S. Lewis, <i>The Voyage of the Dawn Treader</i>
(New York: HarperCollins, 1994 [1952]) 113-16.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote29">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote30anc" name="sdendnote30sym">xxx</a> <span>On
the history of interpretation of “they shall see God,” cf. </span><span>e</span><span>sp.
Dale C. Allison, Jr., “</span><span>Seeing
God:(Matt. 5:8),” in</span><span>
</span><span><i>Studies in Matthew:
Interpretations Past and Present</i></span><span>
(</span><span>Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005) 43-63; cf. Also Eklund, </span><span><i>The
Beatitudes through the Ages</i></span><span>,
</span>215-34.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote30">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote31anc" name="sdendnote31sym">xxxi</a> For
a convenient laying out of the various biblical, Jewish, and early
Christian texts dealing with the matter, cf. Allison, “Seeing
God,” 44-45n.7.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote31">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote32anc" name="sdendnote32sym">xxxii</a> Those
of us reared with a worldview rooted in Western philosophy might
find this a bit surprising, if not off-putting. But we do well to
consider how ancient Jews would have understood the anthropomorphic
descriptions of God which are routinely understood as metaphorical
today, not to mention the fundamental biblical conception of human
beings as created in the image of God. Indeed, as Allison has
demonstrated (“Seeing God,” 45-48), belief in an embodied deity
was widespread in Second Temple Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism, and the
early Church (e.g., Tertullian, <i>Against Praxeas</i>,
7.8-9; Allison thinks it plausible, based in part on Matt 18:10,
that Matthew himself conceived of God in this fashion). Influential
in turning the tide away from such literalism were Origen and
Augustine. Cf. Augustine, <i>On the Sermon on the Mount</i>,
1.8: “How foolish, therefore, are those who seek God with these
outward eyes, since
He is seen with the heart!” For a recent defense of a corporeal
view of God, cf. Puttagunta Satyavani, <i>Seeing the Face of
God: Exploring an Old Testament Theme</i>
(Carlisle, UK: Langham, 2014).</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote32">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote33anc" name="sdendnote33sym">xxxiii</a> Paul
also speaks of Christ as the “image of the invisible God” in his
famous Christ-hymn in Col 1:15. Cf. also Heb 11:27.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote33">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote34anc" name="sdendnote34sym">xxxiv</a> These
two texts are correlated in the wonderful 1867 hymn of the Scottish
Free Church minister Walter Chalmers Smith, “Immortal, Invisible,
God Only Wise”:</span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Immortal,
invisible, God only wise,</span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;">I</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;">n
light inaccessible hid from our eyes,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;">M</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;">ost
blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,</span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;">A</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;">lmighty,
victorious, thy great name we praise.</span></span></span></div></blockquote><div><div>
<p class="sdendnote" style="line-height: 100%;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />
</span></p>
</div>
<div id="sdendnote35"><p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote35anc" name="sdendnote35sym">xxxv</a> <span>Besides
the texts we discuss here, see also Job 19:26; </span><span>1
Cor 13:12; </span><span>Heb
12:14; 1 John 3:2. </span><span>The
hope expressed in these texts, </span><span>as
in Matthew 5:8,</span><span>
is an </span><span><i>eschatological</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
hope. Nevertheless, the desire to have a vision of God </span></span><span><i>in
this life</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
if only partial and provisional, has persisted in both Jewish and
Christian history. As early as the 1st</span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;"> century BCE a strand of mystical Judaism appeared that developed
spiritual exercises designed to lead to the vision, found in Ezekiel
1, of the heavenly chariot, with God enthroned above it </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">(still
classic here is Gershom Scholem, </span></span><span><i>Jewish
Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
[New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965]). </span></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">For
the Christian tradition of attaining to the beatific vision in this
life, see now Hans Boersma, </span></span><span><i>Seeing
God: The Beatific Vision in Christian Tradition</i></span><span><span style="font-style: normal;">
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018).</span></span></span></p>
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote36anc" name="sdendnote36sym">xxxvi</a> E.g.,
Ps 11:7; 17:15; 24:3-6; 27:4; 42:2; 63:2. Cf. Also <i>4 Ezra </i>7:98;
<i>T. Zeb</i>. 9:8.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote36">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote37anc" name="sdendnote37sym">xxxvii</a> See
Mark S. Smith, “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms: The Background to
the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible,” <i>CBQ</i>
50 (1988) 171-73. This is
deemed the “simplest” suggestion as to the text’s meaning by
Allison, “Seeing God,” 59.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote37">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote38anc" name="sdendnote38sym">xxxviii</a> Ezekiel’s
measurements technically make the New Temple a square, with the
height of the Temple implied rather than explicitly spelled out.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote38">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote39anc" name="sdendnote39sym">xxxix</a> Cf.
G. K. Beale, <i>The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek
Text</i> (NIGTC; Grand Rapids and
Cambridge: Eerdmans,/Carlisle: Paternoster,1999) 1093-93;<i>
idem</i>,<i> A New Testament
Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New
</i>(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011)
553.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote39">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote40anc" name="sdendnote40sym">xl</a> It
is surely no coincidence that the phrase, “Holy to the LORD” was
to be engraved on the gold head plate worn by Aaron, the high priest
(Exod 28:38; 39:31).</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote40">
<p class="sdendnote"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote41anc" name="sdendnote41sym">xli</a> “For
now we see in a mirror, indirectly; then we will see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I will know fully, just as I have been
fully known” (trans. JRM). Paul here alludes to Numbers 12:6-8,
which contrasts Moses’ “face to face,” direct encounter with
God’s glory (LXX; MT “form”) with God’s indirect speaking to
other prophets in visions and dreams. Even Paul, as he later told
the Corinthians, beheld God’s glory indirectly, <i>via</i>
the face of Jesus, God’s “image,” who had called him on the
Damascus Road (2 Cor 3:18). The hope of Christians is that we will,
like Moses, be privileged to “see” God face to face, which Paul
characterizes as the experience of knowing fully even as God has
fully known us. Cf. Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, <i>The First
Letter to the Corinthians</i>
(Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids and Cambridge:
Eerdmans/Nottingham: Apollos, 2010)
658-60.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote41">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote42anc" name="sdendnote42sym">xlii</a> For
arguments to the effect that in 1 John 3:2 the object (αὐτὸν)
of believers’ transforming, future sight is God, not Christ, cf.
Raymond E. Brown, <i>The Epistles of John</i>
(AB 30; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1982) 394-95.</span></p></div><div id="sdendnote42">
<p class="sdendnote" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdendnotesym" href="#sdendnote43anc" name="sdendnote43sym">xliii</a> G.
B. Caird, <i>A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine</i>
(Harper’s New Testament Commentaries; New York: Harper & Row,
1966) 280-81.</span></p></div><br /><p></p><p></p></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-88160033874812803652023-07-16T09:29:00.002-07:002023-07-16T09:32:37.425-07:00John 11: A Funeral Homily<h3 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">C</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">harles
Ailes</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">’s
Memorial Service</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">1</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">5
July 2023</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
Masonic Center</span></span></p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
L</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">ancaster,
Pe</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">nnsylvania</span></span></p></h3><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">T</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">he
Anglican </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Book
of Common Prayer</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">memorably
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">begins
its graveside service with the melancholy words u</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">ttered
by</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">the
suffering </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Job
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">found
in chapter </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">14
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">of
the book bearing his name: “Man that is born of a woman hath but a
short time to live, and is full of misery. He cometh up, and is cut
down, like a flower; he fleeth a</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">s
it were</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
a shadow, and never continueth in one stay” (Job 14:</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">1-</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">2</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">).
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">In
the New Testament, the author of Hebrews, shortly before the fall of
Jerusalem in 70 CE, wrote that “It is appointed for people to die
once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb 9:27, trans. JRM).
N</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">eedless
to say,</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
empiricism bears this </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">transience
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">out,
acknowledged by everyone from Shakespeare<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a>
to Kansas’s Kerry Livgren, who almost 50 years ago admonished,
“Give up your foolish pride/All that walk the earth have died.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">We
may not like it, but we can’t avoid the single nastiest fact of
life:</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>
Death is inevitable. It matters not whether one is good or b</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>ad</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>,
rich or poor, educated or illiterate. D</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>eath</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>
is the Great Equalizer. All of us will </i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>eventually
</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>be
caught in its lethal trap.</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">If
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">this
is true, and we all know that it is</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">,
i</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">t
matters greatly</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
how we come to terms with d</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">eath</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">,<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a>
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">and
how we respond when we </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">i</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">nevitably</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">come
face to face with it.<br /></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /> </span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">In
our brief time this afternoon, I would like to draw your attention to
a passage in John’s Gospel that helps
us along these lines. I’m
speaking, of course, of the story of Jesus’ response to the
death, and ultimate
revivification, of his friend Lazarus in John chapter
11. There
we find Jesus to be, not only
the <i>model</i> of how to
respond to death, but also―and
more importantly―the
one who provides the ultimate <i>solution</i>
to the problem posed by death’s inexorability.<br /></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
story is as famous as it is vivid: </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Lazarus’s
sisters Mary and Martha, because their brother had been taken
seriously ill, send for Jesus to come and, presumably, heal him.
Jesus, at this time staying across the Jordan River in Perea, about a
day’s journey from Bethany, deliberately delays coming </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">for
two days</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">stating
that Lazarus’s illness, though seemingly serious, “does not lead
to death,” cryptically adding that his friend’s plight “is for
God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it”
(John 11:4). By the time Jesus and the disciples finally arrive in
Bethany, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Lazarus
has been dead for four days, and his sisters are </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">seen
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">following
the cultural protocol by having mourners (some of whom may have been
of the "professional" kind) aid in their lamentation. The
ever-anxious Martha runs to greet Jesus, wistfully expressing her
faith by immediately saying to him, "Lord, if you had been here,
my brother would not have died" (11:21). Jesus responds by
telling her that Lazarus would indeed rise again (11:23), to which
Martha shows her theological orthodoxy (Pharisee-style)<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">―w</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ith</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
perhaps a bit of exasperation―</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">by
saying, in effect, "Duh! Of course I know he will be raised on
the last day; </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">but
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">that
doesn't help L</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">azarus
or me</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
</span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><i>now</i></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">"
(11:24). </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Martha
then sends for her sister, who proceeds to the tomb, along with h</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">er</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
retinue </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">of
mourners</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
to meet Jesus and Martha there. When Mary arrived, she repeated
Martha's sentiments (11:32) and, along with the consoling crowd who
followed her, continued to wail (11:33).<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /> </span></span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Jesus’
response </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">to
this </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">is
instructive. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Most
famously, when he asked where Lazarus’s tomb was, Mary and Martha
gestured for him to “come and see” (John 11:34). At this, the
text says, “Jesus b</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">urst
out crying</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">”
(11:35, trans. JRM).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a>
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">The
onlookers, c</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">orrectly</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
v</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">iewed</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
Jesus’ response as an expression of his </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">deep
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">love
for his departed friend (11:36). Death, you see, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>hurts</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
and that is true both for the one experiencing it </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>and</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
those loved ones watching d</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">eath</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
do its work. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">W</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">hat</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
Jesus’ example shows that grief is </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>real</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
and that there is no shame in expressing it. Pretending death doesn’t
hurt, whether out of some faux-“spiritual” impulse or simple
repression, is no solution.<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">J</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">esus’
response goes beyond this, however.</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">W</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">hen
Jesus s</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">aw</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
Mary and her c</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ompanions</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
wailing, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">the
text says, in verse 33, that “he was greatly disturbed in spirit
and deeply moved” (NRSV). Many translations, such as the NIV,
follow the linguist Frederick Danker </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">and</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
understand the text in the sense of Jesus being “deeply moved”
emotionally as a result of his seeing the mourners’ grief.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup>6</sup></a>
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">That
goes without saying, of course. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">H</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">owever</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
I don’t believe </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">this</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
gets to the heart of the matter. You see, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">the
first </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">of
the two </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">verb</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">s</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
used </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">here
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">by
John<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup>7</sup></a>
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">is
consistently used </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">elsewhere,
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">not
simply t</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">o
speak of </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
strength of feeling, but rather</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">to
express </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>anger</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">;
ind</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">eed,
it was </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">t</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">he
word</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
used</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
by the ancient Greek tragedian Aeschylus to refer to the “snorting”
of horses when provoked to rage.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup>8</sup></a>
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Clearly,
it would seem, Jesus was moved to </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">inner
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>indignation</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
over what, to him, ought not have happened. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Now,
what </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>caused</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
J</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">esus’</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
f</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ury</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
and inner turmoil is not stated in the text, and so s</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">cholars
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">have
m</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ade</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
various suggestions. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">It
seems to me, however, that it is best to look </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>behind</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
the mourning which called forth Jesus’ response<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup>9</sup></a>
and understand Jesus’ anger to be directed </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">instead
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">a</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">t</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
what </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>caused</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
Lazarus’s demise, namely </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>death
itself</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">.
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">J</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">esus</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
was enraged because, seeing the grief expressed by Lazarus’s family
and friends, he sensed </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">death’s
oppression, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">what
John Calvin called i</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ts</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
“violent tyranny” over humanity.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote10sym" name="sdfootnote10anc"><sup>10<br /></sup></a></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Death,
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">we
learn from Jesus’ example,</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
is </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>always
</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">worthy
of grief. It is worthy of rage. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">D</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">eath,
in John’s view,</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
is the defining feature of the kingdom of Satan, whom John’</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">s
Jesus</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
calls “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">I</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ndeed,
t</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">he
Bible </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">consistently
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">portrays
death as an </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>interloper</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
disrupting God’s good designs for his creation. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">As
such, death must </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ultimately
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">be
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>defeated</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">.
It must </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>be
destroyed</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">.
It must </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">itself</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
as the English poet and preacher John Donne, wrote, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>die.</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote11sym" name="sdfootnote11anc"><sup>11</sup></a>
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">And
this is exactly what was promised in the Book of Daniel, when it
explicitly put forth the prospect of the resurrection of the
righteous to eternal life (Dan 12:2-3). S</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">uch</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
was the hope of Lazarus’s sister, Martha, w</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ho
confidently, if with an air of disappointment,</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
proclaimed her faith that Lazarus would “rise again in the
resurrection on the last day” </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">(John
11:24).<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">T</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">his
ultimate</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
defeat of death is the point of the Lazarus story. As we know, the
story comes to a climax when Jesus co</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">mmands</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
his dead friend to come out of the tomb, and he does so, head wrapped
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">up</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">,
feet and hands bound (John 11:43-44). Now </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">we
must realize that </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Lazarus
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">himself
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">was
not “resurrected” </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><i>per
se</i></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">.
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Presumably
J</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">esus
raised him back</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
to the same mortal life he had before he died, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">and
ultimately found his way back to the grave</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">.
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">But
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">for
John, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">L</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">azarus’s</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
resuscitation and revivification is i</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ntended
to be understood</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">
as the seventh and climactic “sign” </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">in
a series of mighty works </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">designed
to reveal Jesus’ glory and elicit faith in him as the bearer and
bringer of “life.”<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /> </span></span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">This
</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">symbolic
significance </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">is
made clear in Jesus’ conversation with Martha before he raises
Lazarus. After her confession of belief in the (future) resurrection,
Jesus responds: “I am the resurrection and the life. </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Those
who believe in me, even if they die, will l</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">ive</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">.
And everyone who lives and believes in me will never, ever, die”
(John 11:25-26, trans. JRM).<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The
restoration of Lazarus to life, in
other words, was a vivid
picture of Jesus’ power as
the agent of resurrection and the one who not only, as John put it
earlier in his Gospel, possesses the divine life (John 1:4; 5:26),
but also conveys
eternal
life <i>now</i> to
those who believe in him. Jesus
himself was raised, as John says, “on the first day of the week”
(John 20:1), the start of the promised new creation. His resurrection
is, as Jesus himself claims in John 14:19, the guarantee of his
followers’ future
resurrection. But the
defining characteristic
of John’s Gospel is its
argument that Jesus, through
his death and resurrection, has
brought this promised future,
and the “eternal life” proper to it, <i>forward into the
present.<br /></i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /> </span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Earlier
this week, Charles’s son Ben, my son-in-law, told me that Charles’s
favorite verse of Scripture was John 3:16: “For
God so loved the world that
he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not
perish but may have eternal life” (NRSV). In a real sense, the
Lazarus story may be viewed as a narrative illustration of that
verse. The raising of Lazarus both foreshadows the future
resurrection and pictures the giving of spiritual resurrection life
even now to those who believe. For
John, such belief in
Jesus involves a confessional
element, an assent to various propositions about who Jesus is. In his
statement of purpose for the Gospel, John says he wrote that people
might believe “that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John
20:31), the very confession Martha makes in our story (11:27). But
such confession transcends the boundaries of Jewish Messianic
expectations of the time.
For John, Jesus was not only the “Lamb of God, who takes away the
sin of the world” (1:29), but also the eternal “Word” (John
1:1), the self-expression of God, who took on human flesh (1:14) to
reveal God to humanity <i>as a human being</i>,
and who manifested his glory supremely on the cross (12:23; 13:31).<br /></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /> </span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">But
John is most famous for his speaking of “belief <i>in </i>(or
<i>into</i>)<i>”
</i>(πιστεύειν εἰς)
Jesus,
which he does 37 times. Such
belief is not only
assent to such propositions
<i>about</i> Jesus, necessary
as they are. It speaks of a
<i>relationship</i> between
the believer and Jesus―a
relationship that involves
<i>entrusting</i> oneself to
him, personal <i>commitment</i>
to him, even <i>allegiance</i>
to him. It is, in the words of the British theologian Anthony
Thiselton, a “nailing of one’s colors to the mast as a
self-involving act of Christian identity and commitment.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote12sym" name="sdfootnote12anc"><sup>12<br /></sup></a></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span><br /> </span></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span>The
Lazarus story tells those of
us who
believe that, though we still
live in this world of
sickness and death, Jesus the resurrection and the life has
guaranteed that ultimate future when, in the words of John the
Theologian at the end of the 1<sup>st</sup>
century CE, <span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">"[God]
will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no
more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore,
for the former days have passed away" (Rev 21:4, </span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">NRSV</span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">).<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> To
God alone be the glory.</span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><div id="sdfootnote1"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym" style="font-size: large;">1</a><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">E.g., Shakespeare,</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Hamlet </i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">3.1.63-64, 80-81, 83.</span></span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote12"><div id="sdfootnote2"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a> Kansas, “Child of Innocence,” <i>Masque</i> (1975).</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote3"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">It goes without saying that this applies not least to those of us, like myself, for whom, as John Mellencamp once sang, “</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">There's less days in front of the horse/than riding in the back of this cart.” “</span></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The Real Life,” </span></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Lonesome Jubilee</i></span></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> (1987)</span></span></span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">.</span></span></span></span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote4"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a> One of the distinguishing differences between the Pharisees and the aristocratic Sadducees was their contrasting views on resurrection: the Pharisees affirmed it; the Sadducees denied it. Cf. Acts 23:7-9; Mark 12:18 <i>et par. </i>(on the Sadducees); Josephus, <i>Jewish War</i> 2.162-65; <i>Antiquities</i> 18.13-17.</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote5"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a> Gk. ἐδάκρυσεν [an ingressive aorist] ὁ Ἰησοῦς.</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote6"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a> BDAG 322.</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote7"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a> Ἐνεβριμώμενος (aorist middle participle of ἐμβριμάομαι).</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote8"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a> Cf. LSJ; BDAG; <i>EDNT</i> 1:442.</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote9"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym">9</a> Presumably Jesus, himself moved to tears by this friend’s death, would not have taken umbrage when he witnessed the lamentations of Lazarus’s sisters and others.</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote10"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote10anc" name="sdfootnote10sym">10</a> John Calvin, <i>John 11-21 & 1 John</i>. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 5 (trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 13. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, <i>The Gospel according to John I-XII</i> (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 425-26; and esp. B. B. Warfield, “The Emotional Life of Our Lord,” in <i>The Person and Work of Christ</i> (ed. Samuel Craig; Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1950) 116-17.</span></p></div><div id="sdfootnote11"><p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote11anc" name="sdfootnote11sym">11</a> John Donne, Sonnet X (“Death Be Not Proud”) (1633).</span></p></div><p></p><p align="left" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1781025358855188363/8816003387481280365#sdfootnote12anc" name="sdfootnote12sym">12</a> Anthony C. Thiselton, <i>The Hermeneutics of Doctrine</i> (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007)</span> </span></p>
<p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
</span></p>
<p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
</span></p>
<p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; break-before: auto; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in;"><br /></p><div id="sdfootnote12">
</div>
</div><div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><div id="sdfootnote12">
</div></div><div id="sdfootnote12">
</div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-90712892645974446102022-12-23T00:01:00.004-08:002022-12-29T19:49:19.893-08:00Christ the Lord<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">[Note: This post is a revision of the one originally posted on 24 December 2012.]</span></p><p><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiDNxqgzHxcCrpQNVQzjiuTAa2Su-a9rapKavo9CPIdQIgbZrin14yWIJLzs8crcbGNJlSmhsE0-h_NrGh2YTHOQ-E2Rl52Jm-20X5NVwPqPxIvJSeNLOxG9J3F9i08uLbSlr-MM4Lhh7CgTXf-xmjJYOc9aeORP0tKBEQT6sRoMo8conmzTAgqoB3" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="640" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiDNxqgzHxcCrpQNVQzjiuTAa2Su-a9rapKavo9CPIdQIgbZrin14yWIJLzs8crcbGNJlSmhsE0-h_NrGh2YTHOQ-E2Rl52Jm-20X5NVwPqPxIvJSeNLOxG9J3F9i08uLbSlr-MM4Lhh7CgTXf-xmjJYOc9aeORP0tKBEQT6sRoMo8conmzTAgqoB3=w640-h496" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Govert Flinck, <span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span><i>Angels Announcing the Birth of Christ to the Shepherds</i>, 1639<br />(</span></span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span>Musée du Louvre, Paris</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span><span style="font-family: georgia;">)</span></span></span></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td class="tr-caption"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /><br /></span><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #3d3d3d; font-style: italic; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 24px; vertical-align: baseline;">In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #3d3d3d; font-style: italic; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 24px; vertical-align: baseline;">Then an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #3d3d3d; font-style: italic; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 24px; vertical-align: baseline;">But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #3d3d3d; font-style: italic; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 24px; vertical-align: baseline;">to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah,</span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #3d3d3d; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 24px; vertical-align: baseline;"><i> the Lord </i>(Luke 2:8-11, NRSV).</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">These are familiar words indeed to all, like I was, who were raised in Christian households where the narratives of Jesus' birth played a prominent role in family and corporate worship each December. But, as so often, it is their very familiarity that all too often renders us insensitive to the profoundly shocking theological implications of this angelic announcement. Indeed, this is the only text in the New Testament in which Jesus is called Savior, Messiah (“Christ”), and Lord in conjunction with one another.*</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Particularly important is Luke's identification of Jesus as “Messiah, Lord.” As is universally known, Jews of many stripes in the first century were eagerly anticipating—and some, in various ways, were vigorously trying to hasten—the coming of a promised Messiah from the line of David,** who <i>by definition</i> would be the “Messiah <i>of </i>the Lord” (Greek <i>christos kyriou</i>) (cf. Luke 2:26!). But here Luke designates Jesus as <i>christos kyrios</i>, a difference of only one letter from the standard Jewish expectation (he uses the nominative rather than genitive case). This may appear at first glance to be only a minute, insignificant difference, but one would be mistaken to view it as such. Indeed, this grammatical difference demonstrates how the New Testament's portrait of Jesus subtly breaks the bounds of Jewish messianic expectation.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Luke's double designation, "Messiah, Lord," is found also in only two extant texts in Jewish Second Temple literature, both in the Psalms of Solomon (<i>ca. </i>60 BCE): Psalms of Solomon 17.32 and 18.7. In each of these there is no suggestion that the Messiah is being identified in any ontological sense, let alone fused or <i>con</i>fused with the one God of Jewish confession. In other words, "Lord"/<i>kyrios</i> is less a divine than a royal/political title or honorific. That is, the anointed king would be "Lord" in that he was to rule over Israel <i>on God's behalf.</i>*** There are compelling reasons to believe more is intended by Luke, however. This is argued most compellingly by C. Kavin Rowe, who traces Luke's unfolding of Jesus' identity via <i>narrative</i>, demonstrating convincingly that the Evangelist at times (such as in his citation of Isaiah 40 as the blueprint for John the Baptist's ministry in Luke 3) utilizes deliberate ambiguity so as to produce an "overlap" or "shared identity" between Jesus and God.****</div></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Luke, of course, regularly uses the term "Lord" with reference to the God of Israel, YHWH. For instance, four times in Luke 1 the title is used of this God with reference to his sovereign deity (Luke 1:16, 46, 68, 76) in the context of his faithful sending of Jesus to fulfill the Davidic/Messianic promises found in Israel's Scriptures. Yet at least 15 times Luke refers to Jesus as the "Lord" (cf., <i>inter alia</i>, 1:43; 2:11; 7:13, 18-19; 10:39; 22:61).***** Luke later includes in his narrative the bedrock Markan tradition of Jesus' own quotation of Psalm 110:1 (“The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand ...”) in which he interprets the text as a reference to the Messiah's enthronement alongside YHWH himself, thereby demonstrating that the title “David's son” (i.e., “Messiah”) is ultimately inadequate in and of itself to describe who Jesus was (Luke 20:42-43).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The full theological import of this move only becomes transparent in Luke's sequel to his Gospel, the Book of Acts. There Jesus, the risen Messiah, is proclaimed to be worthy of the title “Lord” by virtue of his exercise of exclusively divine prerogatives. Forgiveness is received through repentance and baptism in his name (Acts 2:28). Healing and the power of salvation reside in his name (3:6, 16; 4:12; 10:43). The risen Jesus indeed is “Lord of all” and “judge of the living and the dead” (10:36, 42).******</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The significance of the angel's reported message that long ago night <i>ca.</i> 5 BCE is captured by the great Charles Wesley in his immortal Christmas hymn, “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing” (utilizing motifs from Matthew and John as well as Luke, not to mention reflecting the orthodox, conciliar theology ultimately developed from these texts):</div></span><br /></span><div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Christ by highest heav'n adored </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Christ the everlasting Lord! </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Late in time behold Him come </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Offspring of the Virgin's womb </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Veiled in flesh the Godhead see </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Hail the incarnate Deity </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Pleased as man with man to dwell </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Jesus, our Emmanuel </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Hark! The herald angels sing </span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">"Glory to the newborn King!" </span></i></div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br />Messiah Jesus—the Lord!—was willing to condescend to become a human being, in the words of the Nicene Creed, “for us and for our salvation.” The baby Jesus we celebrate each December was the baby who, according to the divine plan, would ultimately, about 37 years later, die an ignominious death on a Roman cross to save his people from their sins—born, as Wesley said, that “man no more may die.”<br /><br />One of the glories of the Christian message is that <i>God himself has done for us what we could not and cannot do for ourselves.</i> Let those of us who bear the name of Christ reflect gratefully on this as we celebrate his birth on Sunday. If any who read this have not done so, please consider the claims made by and about the baby of Bethlehem and, like the shepherds of old, bow down before him in faith as the crucified and resurrected Lord.<br /><br />I leave you with a video of "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing" from St. Paul's Cathedral, London. The majesty of the setting and spine-tingling performance of David Willcock's famous treble descant by the Cathedral choir perfectly complement the incomparably profound words the choir and congregation sing. Merry Christmas!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LDPwNPAV6tA" width="320" youtube-src-id="LDPwNPAV6tA"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">*Cf. Michael F. Bird, <i>Jesus is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels</i> (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2015) 81: " In any case, the titles of Saviour, Messiah, and Lord compressed in 2:11 are indicative of Jesus' identity, authority, and mission. He traverses the heaven/earth divide as Lord, he is fulfiller of Israel's hopes as the Davidic Messiah, and he executes deliverance as the appointed saviour."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">**Jewish hopes and expectations were not univocal. For a helpful overview, cf. John J. Collins, <i>The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls</i>, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">***Cf. Robert R. Hann, "Christos Kyrios in PsSol 17.32: 'The Lord's Anointed' Reconsidered," <i>New Testament Studies</i> 31 (1985) 620-27.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">****C. Kavin Rowe, <i>Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke </i>(BZNW 139; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;">*****Cf. Richard B. Hays, <i>Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels</i> (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2016) 253: "In short, Luke <i>in his own narration</i> quite remarkably applies the title [<i>kyrios</i>] both to the God of Israel and to Jesus of Nazareth—occasionally in a way that suggests a mysterious fusion of divine and human identity in the figure of Jesus. This is not the result of editorial carelessness. Luke has deployed his references to Jesus as [<i>kyrios</i>] with careful compositional skill to shape the reader's understanding of Jesus' div</span>ine identity."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia;">******<span style="font-size: medium;">Indeed, as Rowe has persuasively argued, such texts as Luke 2:11 demonstrate that, when Peter declared on Pentecost, "</span></span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36, NRSV), Jesus' Lordship was not an appointment only given subsequent to, and by virtue of, his resurrection. No, this was a status he had from the beginning. Rather, the emphasis lies at the beginning, where Peter says, "Let the whole house of Israel <i>know" (ginōsketō</i>) that God had appointed Jesus both Lord and Messiah. The change brought about was in the perception and knowledge of the listeners, not the status of Jesus himself. Cf. Rowe, "Acts 2:36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology," <i>New Testament Studies</i> 53 (2007) 37-53.</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></div></div></span></span></td></tr></tbody></table>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-17607446836553884222022-01-17T11:25:00.002-08:002024-01-15T06:59:50.067-08:00Martin Luther King's Final Speech, 3 April 1968: "I've Been to the Mountaintop"<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="358" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aL4FOvIf7G8" width="431" youtube-src-id="aL4FOvIf7G8"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">[For the full text of his speech, see <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/us/martin-luther-king-jr-mountaintop-speech-trnd/index.html">here</a>; for the video of the entire speech, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfwGLxRJU8&ab_channel=Divinity33372">here</a>.]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">"Mine eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord." With this citation of the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. turned, physically and emotionally drained, and walked away from the podium at the Mason Temple in Memphis on the evening of the 3rd of April, 1968. He would be dead less than 24 hours later, assassinated on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel by a sniper's bullet.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I have often written about Dr. King over the years―<span style="background-color: white;">his "I Have a Dream" speech (</span><a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/01/having-been-laid-up-by-brutal-case-of.html" style="background-color: white; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white;">), his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (</span><a href="https://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/04/martin-luther-king-jrs-letter-from.html?showComment=1499809613409" style="background-color: white; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white;">), his powerful, prophetic calls for justice and against war (</span><a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/01/martin-luther-king-social-justice-and.html" style="background-color: white; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white;">), his 1960 <i>Christian Century</i> article, "Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" (<a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/01/martin-luther-king-jr-and-gospel-for.html">here</a>)</span>―perhaps as a reflex to my evangelical background's at best marginalization of him, and at worst disparagement or disowning of him as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Yes, he was no evangelical (the fundamentalist preacher and future <i>Left Behind </i>author Tim LaHaye, in a <a href="https://currentpub.com/2022/01/17/tim-lahaye-had-some-choice-words-for-wheaton-college-when-the-evangelical-school-hosted-a-memorial-service-for-martin-luther-king-jr/?fbclid=IwAR1subIOUoAtb9tDirt3riSfapQk6FEZFRL4KELc3kHFrL2dGcwNSoG3kPI">letter</a> to Wheaton president Carl Armerding protesting the school's holding a memorial to the slain civil rights leader after his assassination, referred to him as "an outright theological liberal heretic"). Yes, he had documented academic and moral failures. But, as one who lived through the time period and knows the people who most disparaged him, I greatly suspect the real reason lies elsewhere. After all, significant moral failings have not diminished their assessments of such other monumental historical figures as Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, and Winston Churchill.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What still strikes me, as it has struck nearly everyone over the years, is that King, in alluding to the experience of Moses on Mt. Nebo (Deuteronomy 34), appears to have foreseen his approaching martyrdom for the cause of civil rights. What showed his true greatness was his courageous refusal to shrink from what he saw to be the mission he had been given to do ("I just want to do God's will") in the teeth of implacable opposition. As I have often reflected, King saw himself, first and foremost, as a minister of the gospel. And, for those of my evangelical friends who might demur, let me remind you that the genuine, "biblical" gospel is the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, yes, <i>but it is also the gospel of Mary's Magnificat; it is also the gospel of Jesus' Nazareth Manifesto in Luke 4</i>. In other words, the New Testament gospel is not the pinched, desiccated, dualistic, "soterian" "life-after-death"-exclusive gospel of much popular evangelicalism. As I argued, ten years ago now, in a 9-part series on this blog, the New Testament gospel is the announcement of the inbreaking, through the events of Jesus' death and resurrection, of the long-awaited kingdom of God/new creation promised in the Hebrew scriptures. It may include such elements as substitutionary atonement and justification by faith, but it cannot be limited to such things, divorced from ultimate social, and <i>societal</i>, ramifications. As Dr. King proclaimed, prophetically as it were, "Mine eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One more thing strikes me. It has been close to 54 years since Dr. King spoke these words. He claimed to have "seen the promised land." There are some, indeed, who, seeing laws passed in the wake of the civil rights struggles of the '60's, believe the promised land to have been reached. This, of course, was the rationale of Chief Justice John Roberts and the four other conservatives of the Supreme Court, who gutted the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by striking down its Section 4(b) in their <i>Shelby County v. Holder</i> ruling in 2014, believing it no longer to be necessary. The results could have been predicted: many southern states have once again acted to purge registration rolls, enact voter ID rules, end or restrict early voting and same-day registration, shuttering polling locations in minority districts, etc., in efforts to hold the vote down. The manufactured crisis over "critical race theory" in schools, or even the more general issue of "systemic racism," is yet another issue. Many people―I won't mention their race to protect the guilty; hint: it's the same as mine―continue to insist, in what must be a vain attempt to salve guilty consciences, that the problem is only a matter of the individual prejudice of a few bad actors. What a load of rubbish. And nothing will change until a large enough number of the majority community in this country comes to grips with the problem and acknowledges it. But there's the rub: such would involve the actual teaching of history, something many in this country are not really in the mood for these days. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Today, in the wake of Donald Trump's refusal to acknowledge his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, multiple "red" states have passed laws both restricting the vote and placing the elections in charge of partisan Republican legislatures in transparent efforts to game the system for future potential steals. In each case, the target of their vote suppression are the very demographic King fought, and ultimately died, for. Biden and the Democrats in Congress, of course, have a voting rights bill ready to counteract these measures, but thus far it remains stalled. The problem? Of course, the anti-democratic Senate, split 50/50 along partisan lines, even though the 50 Democrats represent 40 million more people than the 50 Republicans. The fly in the ointment, however, remains the two recalcitrant "moderate" Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who, though they <i>say</i> they believe in voting rights, pledge ultimate fealty to the traditional, though not constitutional, institution of the filibuster. Hence, since they can't get ten (!) Republicans to vote for the bill, they won't either. Better, I guess, incipient authoritarianism than unilaterally-sanctioned democracy? I won't pretend to guess as to the motivation for Sinema's and Manchin's bull-headedness on this matter. Certainly they can't be as naïve as they appear. But my only question is this: if 51 votes is OK to pass Trump's tax cuts for the rich and confirm Supreme Court justices, why not voting rights to secure democratic outcomes to our elections? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Such seems like a no-brainer to me. And it would be the most fitting tribute to the memory of Dr. King. Don't honor his memory unless you mean it.</span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-6171949003784261942022-01-06T09:47:00.000-08:002022-01-06T09:47:36.769-08:00T. S. Eliot's "Journey of the Magi" (1927): A Brief Reflection for Epiphany<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Today (Jan 6) marks the Christian Feast of the Epiphany, which in the Western Church celebrates the visit of the gift-bearing Magi to Bethlehem narrated in Matthew chapter 2. In Matthew's narrative, the Magi, who "prostrate themselves" before the one "born King of the Jews," represent, as the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown argued,* the firstfruits of the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations and their submission to the true God. This richly evocative story called forth this wonderful poem by Christian convert T. S. Eliot in 1927:</span></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" dir="auto" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>A cold coming we had of it,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Just the worst time of the year</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>For a journey, and such a long journey:</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>The ways deep and the weather sharp,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>The very dead of winter.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Lying down in the melting snow.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>There were times when we regretted</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And the silken girls bringing sherbet.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Then the camel men cursing and grumbling</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And the cities dirty and the towns unfriendly</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And the villages dirty and charging high prices:</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>A hard time we had of it.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>At the end we preferred to travel all night,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Sleeping in snatches,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>With the voices singing in our ears, saying</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>That this was all folly.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>With a running stream and a water mill beating the darkness,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And three trees on the low sky,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And feet kicking the empty wineskins.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>But there was no information, and so we continued</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>All this was a long time ago, I remember,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>And I would do it again, but set down</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>This set down</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>This: were we led all that way for</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>But had thought they were different; this Birth was</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>With an alien people clutching their gods.</i></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>I should be glad of another death.</i></span></p></blockquote><p class="jlfdnvsn" dir="auto" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Three elements of this poem stand out for me. The first is the reference to the "three trees on the low sky." This, transparently, is an allusion to the three crosses on Golgotha 36 years (on the assumption of a 33 CE date for the crucifixion) after their visit. The second is the line, "Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver," likewise alluding to the soldiers' dicing for Jesus's garments (Mark 15:24 <i>et par.</i>) and Judas's betrayal of his Lord for 30 pieces of silver (Matt 26:15). Elliot's point in these two allusions is manifest: Jesus's death is already foreshadowed at his birth. And by doing this Eliot is, I believe, faithful to the theological intent of Matthew's narrative, in which "all Jerusalem" is "terrified" of the news of the birth of the King (Matt 2:3) and the "chief priests and scribes" "of the people" "assemble" in response, in deliberate foreshadowing of the "high priests and elders of the people's" decision to put Jesus to death at the climax of the story (Matt 27:1; cf. v. 25). Even in Matthew's story, in other words, the shadow of the cross hangs over Jesus's life from the beginning. For in truth Jesus was a baby born to die for all, Jew and Gentile alike, who submit to him as did the Magi of old. </span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">The third element I would like to highlight comes at the end: "We returned to our places, these Kingdoms, But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation, with an alien people clutching their gods." This highlights the all-important New Testament theological emphasis on <i>inaugurated eschatology</i>. The birth of Jesus―indeed, his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection viewed as a whole, the entire complex conveniently referred to as the "Christ-event"―changed things, indeed changed things fundamentally and eschatologically, inaugurating the promised kingdom and fulfilling, in an initial sense, the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Second Exodus, the New Creation</span><span style="font-family: times; letter-spacing: -0.41px;">―these have arrived, <i>but not completely, not as they will be at the consummation</i>. The new age co-exists in "eschatological" tension with the old, a fact which gives the apostle Paul's theology its particular dynamic and dynamism. What matters is what today's followers of Jesus do with this eschatological tension. As Eliot, through the words of the Magi, suggests (rightly), the Christian, as a citizen of the kingdom of God, should never be totally at ease "here, in the old dispensation, with an alien people clutching their gods." As an American, it may be uncomfortable to have to say this, but America, like Britain, like Canada, may be a fine country to live in, but it is a human country, and that means it is a fallen country. It is not an outpost of the kingdom of God. And it has its own idols, chief among them being, as I heard Ron Sider say a number of years ago in a fine commencement address at Messiah College, an "idolatrous nationalism" that runs rampant in evangelical circles in today's America. As Christians, our job is to work <i>for</i> the kingdom of God, for that is where our true citizenship resides.</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; letter-spacing: -0.41px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Soli Deo Gloria!</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; letter-spacing: -0.41px;"><br /></span></p><p class="jlfdnvsn" dir="auto" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; letter-spacing: -0.41px; line-height: 1.4118; margin: 16px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">*Raymond E. Brown, <i>The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke</i>, 2d ed. (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1999) </span><span style="font-family: times; letter-spacing: -0.41px;">187; cf. Matt 8:11-12; Isaiah 60:6; Psalm 72:10-11, 15.</span><p></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-49074641072567498802021-10-28T06:35:00.011-07:002021-10-29T07:36:14.376-07:00Remembering My Father on the Centenary of His Birth<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrnhiK0EggNmMzpUQcGkEW6erg9LwWX2spRbTVG4Tvax3dSRBqtz5vTqOzLumiJOc7341hU02VfYcgxCLuyVUF9gNwEWD0ALbGoTItTkyGqq2Ije5ZrC_S6tUlbHJQMb-4Stnh5RLlMwU/s2048/005-2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1639" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrnhiK0EggNmMzpUQcGkEW6erg9LwWX2spRbTVG4Tvax3dSRBqtz5vTqOzLumiJOc7341hU02VfYcgxCLuyVUF9gNwEWD0ALbGoTItTkyGqq2Ije5ZrC_S6tUlbHJQMb-4Stnh5RLlMwU/w512-h640/005-2.jpg" width="512" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><br />So when a great man dies,<br />For years beyond our ken,<br />The light he leaves behind him lies<br />Upon the paths of men</i></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, "Charles Sumner" (1875)</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My father, the Rev. Dr. John F. McGahey, was born 100 years ago today in Montchanin, Delaware. I find these words as hard to believe as they feel surreal to write for, though he has been gone from this earth nearly 35 years, not a day goes by that I don't think of him, and his memory―indeed his very voice―remains as fresh in my mind today as if I had just heard it yesterday, not on November 18, 1986, when indeed I last spoke to him on the phone in Dallas from a distance of over 1400 miles. He was taken from us shortly after his 65th birthday, the victim, as his beloved British used to say, of a hereditary "dicky ticker." Only the good die young, indeed. Yet, as Longfellow wrote in his tribute to Charles Sumner, the light he left in his wake still lies upon the paths trod by those diminishing numbers of us who follow in his footsteps.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Years ago <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2014/11/">I wrote a tribute</a> to dad, honoring him on the 28th anniversary of his death. In that piece, reflecting an earlier tribute to F. F. Bruce by his friend Charlie Moule, I focused on the twin Christian virtues of grace and truth, so rarely found in combination, which I believe found their dual embodiment in dad to a degree rarely seen in my experience: his legendary zeal for what he considered the truth was matched by a life committed to, and profoundly conditioned by, God's grace in Christ.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-BatzacvTpDyxVRdRykr-HOwDmDHmTVg1eV-caIRHCGuyF770dHXWLHPr6_olL5R0Fc062EAX0fcW5gaZKmrwoa9UGsk55gsCR5ADK3-TNDkqHEVKTKUL6t-CcXJ96gIN4B4CJxgRKjI/s1007/011.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1007" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-BatzacvTpDyxVRdRykr-HOwDmDHmTVg1eV-caIRHCGuyF770dHXWLHPr6_olL5R0Fc062EAX0fcW5gaZKmrwoa9UGsk55gsCR5ADK3-TNDkqHEVKTKUL6t-CcXJ96gIN4B4CJxgRKjI/w229-h320/011.jpg" width="229" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The earliest picture of dad</span></td></tr></tbody></table>I can hardly improve now on what I wrote then, so I would like to focus today on what is both to me, personally, and for the present <i>Zeitgeist</i>, I believe to be the most significant consequence of his life. The marks of his influence on my life are everywhere present. One thinks particularly of the love of sports. He was a great athlete, perhaps the greatest natural athlete I have ever known (the memory of him, as a 50-year old, running down an all-Central League high school soccer player from behind in a touch football game still stands out, not to mention the one-armed pull-ups he used to do in the stairwell to our attic). As a wee lad, there was always a football, basketball, or baseball game on TV on the weekend whenever he was not away preaching. I still remember watching, at the age of 6, the Bears-Giants 1963 NFL Championship Game with him and my cousin Tommy in the latter's house in Piscataway, New Jersey on December 29, 1963. Likewise, I still remember him telling my brother and me stories about the greatness of Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, and before them, his childhood heroes Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, when he started buying baseball cards for us from the Jack and Jill ice cream truck that passed through our West Philadelphia neighborhood in the spring of 1964. He taught us how to play the various sports at an early age (hitting fungoes directly at us and zipping passes to us so we would learn not to be afraid of the ball, improvising basketball by shooting an inflatable ball between the power line and the back wall of our row house in the alley), was always <i>the </i>dad who played the games with us and our friends, and who took us to multiple Phillies and Sixers games each year. </span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The love of all things British is another tell-tale sign of his influence. This, of course, is not surprising, considering he came from an immigrant Protestant family from the north of Ireland, with three siblings born in the old country and two sisters with Brits as husbands. Only as I have grown old(er), however, have I realized the degree to which his insistence that our family was both American <i>and</i> British was unusual, to say the least, in the country of my birth. (And I still can't fathom how someone won't put a splash of milk in their tea.) My sensibilities, in more ways than I can count, were shaped by my 22 years of life apprenticeship with him.</span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxkhMzcGKWgASgYclZU032M8MJpBL2wWDk6Tsw9A5hnvNLU2vohm1ebzyeQyfdtg6XJ-HfIDEt7AB1M5ftT0rTH7MO7JmUK2pHDiuAQzbZm3TYMO3-jIRVa37UPaFpbVSCmzkmfCC95zA/s2048/002-001.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1366" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxkhMzcGKWgASgYclZU032M8MJpBL2wWDk6Tsw9A5hnvNLU2vohm1ebzyeQyfdtg6XJ-HfIDEt7AB1M5ftT0rTH7MO7JmUK2pHDiuAQzbZm3TYMO3-jIRVa37UPaFpbVSCmzkmfCC95zA/w266-h400/002-001.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Dad with other family members, including<br />his father, John (with the pipe) and brother,<br />Bill (in rear at right).<br />Montchanin, Delaware, <i>ca</i>. early 1930's</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Most importantly, however, and I say this with no hesitation, I am a Christian, and remain one to this day, largely because of my father and the influence of the towering example provided by his life. As I mentioned in my earlier tribute, Dartmouth historian Randall Balmer perceptively opined that "conversionist" evangelicalism's greatest challenge, indeed difficulty, when compared to, say, Roman Catholicism, is the passing on of the faith from one generation to the next. This structural difficulty was exacerbated in my case as the son, not just of some run of the mill preacher or Bible teacher, but of a theology professor of some repute within certain ecclesial circles in the wider Mid-Atlantic region (I think likewise of the experiences of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mine-Eyes-Have-Seen-Glory/dp/0199360464/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3GW7ARVAVZZZV&dchild=1&keywords=randall+balmer&qid=1635179476&s=books&sprefix=randall+balmer%2Cstripbooks%2C211&sr=1-3">Balmer</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3SKE2WOJ1J4J3&dchild=1&keywords=frank+schaeffer&qid=1635179659&s=books&sprefix=frank+scaeffer%2Cstripbooks%2C95&sr=1-3">Frank Schaeffer</a>, though the latter is the son of a far more famous figure and has rejected far more of what he had been bequeathed). Considering his theological proclivities and feisty temperament, I have often joked, though only somewhat in jest, that it was like being raised by the Apostle Paul himself. Quite a daunting experience! It wasn't simply the fact that <i>others</i> expected a demonstrable, outward "piety" from me to which I was (and am) temperamentally incapable (the transparency of character I inherited and/or learned from dad made sure of that; there were few things he scorned more than such spirituality-for-show). More to the point was my own constant desire not to disappoint him and mom, and my usual awareness that I hadn't done as well as I could or should have (though they never showed or articulated any such disappointment).</span><p></p></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_0N4vc1zsNRbKTTNnF5SyJ8fJJU2x0Zc8ztuDl5JfMTRbQ827F_JEtBvA-pglUp7VOU7fWqLwntjV3v8fRsE5LM2gJS4u74yoMNgA9cjncPlwhS_bdIzE3nAjYgN-AYky-skOn8qfb_g/s2048/DSC01235.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1362" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_0N4vc1zsNRbKTTNnF5SyJ8fJJU2x0Zc8ztuDl5JfMTRbQ827F_JEtBvA-pglUp7VOU7fWqLwntjV3v8fRsE5LM2gJS4u74yoMNgA9cjncPlwhS_bdIzE3nAjYgN-AYky-skOn8qfb_g/w266-h400/DSC01235.JPG" width="266" /></a></div></span><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">As a theologian, dad is probably best remembered by his former students as a Dispensationalist ("Israel is <i>not</i> the Church!"), which he taught and defended throughout his 29 years at Philadelphia College of Bible. Like all of us, dad was a man of his time, perhaps more evident in his case here more than in any other area (though I say, with some pride, that it was his 1957 Dallas Th.D. dissertation on the New Covenant that sowed the seeds for the ultimate demise of the classic dispensationalism he inherited as a viable theological system). In a similar vein, he was decidedly old-fashioned in proudly wearing the label of "fundamentalist," and was disappointed in me when, after reading J. I. Packer's <i>"Fundamentalism" and the Word of God</i> for an undergraduate theology class, I told him I didn't think it wise or helpful to use the term as a designation. Yet he wasn't a fundamentalist of the variety all too well-known in America. To be sure, he made sure to stress that the Bible was <i>inerrant</i> as well as infallible, but he was a fundamentalist the way J. Gresham Machen was, the Princeton/Westminster New Testament scholar who wrote the classic <i>Christianity and Liberalism</i>, a book dad still assigned as a text more than 50 years after it was originally written in 1923. He derided anti-intellectualism, the overt racism of southern fundamentalists like Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell, and the rigid "secondary" separationism of northern fundamentalists like Carl McIntyre and the Regular Baptists. His, in other words, was a decidedly northern, urban fundamentalism of the old sort, a far cry culturally from the fundamentalism that most people, then no less than now, associated with the term. It must be remembered that he came from Anglican stock, and there remains to this day a plaque in a beautiful Episcopal church outside of Wilmington, Delaware, with his name on it as a baptized member of the church who had served in the country's armed services. When his family moved to North Jersey, they began attending Elmwood Presbyterian Church in East Orange. Later, when I came of school age, my parents sent me to a Lutheran elementary school in Havertown, PA. Later still, even as a "fundamentalist" Bible professor, he often pointed me as a student to Anglican New Testament scholars like J. B. Lightfoot and especially Presbyterian theologians like the Hodges, B. B. Warfield, and John Murray―he especially admired Murray's commentary on Romans―for help. He was no anti-intellectual. Moreover, he was a Calvinist, after all!</span></p></div><p style="text-align: left;"></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs_ZJieo1E_w2hOXT_8Pyvcro0RA0GMdsUk4CYJjKQ-HpKEbW5pEh1YYUBiy1dQaeDM1D52Qwdcurnw5UAX56IEJ-8RYiruE5HotqusKCBmzE0fdf4fGTPCVfxPSSqCfcVz52q6oy7J5s/s2048/015-002.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1360" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs_ZJieo1E_w2hOXT_8Pyvcro0RA0GMdsUk4CYJjKQ-HpKEbW5pEh1YYUBiy1dQaeDM1D52Qwdcurnw5UAX56IEJ-8RYiruE5HotqusKCBmzE0fdf4fGTPCVfxPSSqCfcVz52q6oy7J5s/w426-h640/015-002.jpg" width="426" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Dad and Mom, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1946</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">As I reflect back on dad's life, the more I come to realize that the North Star of his life as well as his theology was the Apostle Paul, especially the Paul of the Epistle to the Romans, which he considered―rightly, in my view―the greatest, most important book of the New Testament. One lesson he learned and internalized from Paul in that book is the concept of Christian liberty that had, to say the least, been largely perverted in American fundamentalism at the time. At this late stage of my life, from a distance of more decades than I care to admit, it is hard to fathom, but in those circles the idea of the Christian life had too often been reduced to a convoluted hodgepodge of an emotionalistic pietism, a selective, sexually-oriented moralism, and a boundary-marking legalism. The last of these, of course, consisted of elements that often attained a sociological importance far out of proportion to their intrinsic worth, which wasn't much to begin with: drinking, smoking, movies, playing cards, rock and roll (and other forms of the "devil's music," such as blues and jazz). Most of these didn't concern me. But I loved music, and was an aspiring trumpet player who especially loved jazz and the rock music emanating from the new FM radio stations like WMMR in Philly. Even though he, of course, didn't like such music in the least, </span><i style="font-family: times;">not once</i><span style="font-family: times;"> did dad say anything about my listening to it; nor did he ever prohibit me from purchasing jazz or rock records (indeed, I still recall one time in the summer of 1973 when, on the drive back home from the shopping center, he saw my copy of </span><i style="font-family: times;">Chicago VI</i><span style="font-family: times;"> I had just bought; he asked, "Are you sure that's OK to listen to?" When I responded in the affirmative, that was sufficient for him). And of course he enthusiastically supported my playing jazz in the high school stage band. When I arrived at my fundamentalist college and found out how many of my friends had not been allowed to listen to such music, I was shocked. Sadly, I learned quickly not to be surprised when looked down upon as "unspiritual" by the "spiritual elite" for doing so. Dad may have been "Snappin' Jack," with strong convictions and a pronounced zeal for defending them, but he knew the difference between <i>adiaphora</i> and sin, and was perfectly willing to stand up, alone if need be, to support a Christian's right to the former.</span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGDbsqcFVEK-DX0Rj5Q2uwg9pEiYzAaQLztY9HyCLFlSoHCaZzfAJzNvpCTS75PG4q1RRrpnQH1IQks3ewiv2ZPQp3ihJQldb79tWjpivt7EO7yl1TKk4bzCWSTPbJLYxBwM3Iqs6TBJI/s1811/053.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1209" data-original-width="1811" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGDbsqcFVEK-DX0Rj5Q2uwg9pEiYzAaQLztY9HyCLFlSoHCaZzfAJzNvpCTS75PG4q1RRrpnQH1IQks3ewiv2ZPQp3ihJQldb79tWjpivt7EO7yl1TKk4bzCWSTPbJLYxBwM3Iqs6TBJI/w400-h268/053.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Dad with the author, Philadelphia, early 1960's</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">As is increasingly obvious, the </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/james.mcgahey/posts/10220223019981892?notif_id=1635174499119941&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif" style="font-family: times;">evangelical church in America is in disarray</a><span style="font-family: times;">. I myself wrote my own </span><a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/01/evangelicalism-rip.html" style="font-family: times;">obituary</a><span style="font-family: times;"> for the movement back in January in the wake of yet another election in which Donald Trump had won 80% or so of the white evangelical vote. Younger folks raised in the movement appear to be leaving in droves, leading to the </span><a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/09/mene-mene-tekel-uparsin-jay-green-and.html" style="font-family: times;">"Exvangelical"</a><span style="font-family: times;"> phenomenon, even as </span><a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/september/trump-evangelical-identity-pew-research-survey-presidency.html" style="font-family: times;">more Trump supporters, or Republicans in general, are now adopting the label</a><span style="font-family: times;">, irrespective of whether or not they attend church, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/evangelical-republican.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR3j3PZ8NrrBUD6DJs-FXobP6cxPOeCzV7tW2Y2cDN1iQTeABbkHGWhfCuI">or even are Christian at all</a>. In these dark days I have, because of my implacable and outspoken criticism of Trump, lost not a few friends. "Meaningful Christian community" has, for all practical purposes, become for many an oxymoron as hordes have compromised their devotion to the Lord Christ by their inexplicable devotion to a human political ideology and a criminal, amoral (indeed blatantly <i>immoral</i>) former president. Many have asked me why I hang on, why I refuse to quit, why I persevere in the faith entrusted to me by my dear, departed father.</span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht78ncCQdu8FDvXp3NlB3Pcv2GX738TtIL7UEUU8B-wCaYInj4pjV_5lqlM4QyWBuoB7g2cP7DTLAaIA97QXAVI7Cx6Ml3QLV9G-0a_vMg24mGvT6RfXM_F9qPpIimV2NsZ0B5Kc1wcyE/s1800/003-2.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1800" data-original-width="1796" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht78ncCQdu8FDvXp3NlB3Pcv2GX738TtIL7UEUU8B-wCaYInj4pjV_5lqlM4QyWBuoB7g2cP7DTLAaIA97QXAVI7Cx6Ml3QLV9G-0a_vMg24mGvT6RfXM_F9qPpIimV2NsZ0B5Kc1wcyE/w399-h400/003-2.jpg" width="399" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">With his brother Bill in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, August 1975</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">To be honest, that's a good question, <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-i-am-still-christian.html">one to which I gave a lengthy response</a> some eight years ago. The short answer is that I won't quit and <i>can't </i>quit. Why? Because I <i>know </i>the faith is true. And I know this, not from personal experience―"you ask me how I know he lives?/he lives within my heart;" dad hated that hymn, realizing, correctly, the deceptive potential of subjective feelings and emotions―but because I have seen the faith work itself out in the life of my father. To be sure, I believe in the truth of Christianity <i>intellectually </i>because I believe the testimony of Scripture to the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Dad would have said, "You ask me how I know he lives?/The Bible tells me so"). But I wonder sometimes how many Christians in America, especially those of us of a certain age raised in Christian homes in a culture where Christianity was the dominant cultural expression, ever sit down and consider how truly outrageous the claims of our religion are, to wit, that the god of a middle eastern nomad named Abraham, </span><span style="font-family: times;">and of only one branch of his family (the Jacobean line)―a historically insignificant people who had been dominated by the major players of the ancient world such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Syrians, and Romans― <i>this god </i>is the one and <i>only </i>God of the whole world; even more outrageous: that the Galilean man Jesus of Nazareth not only was this God's incarnate Son, but that his crucifixion by the Romans was God's ultimate victory over sin and evil, that he was vindicated by being raised bodily to immortal life two days later, and that this resurrected Jesus will return again at some undisclosed time in the future to establish God's kingdom on earth as in heaven. As I said, these claims are outrageous … and yet they are non-negotiable, claims Christians <i>by definition </i>stake their lives upon. As counterintuitive as it may seem, I nevertheless do believe there are good, <i>abjunctive</i> historical arguments for affirming the truth of the resurrection, as <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_16?crid=GUYH1DFQAQRV&dchild=1&keywords=n.+t.+wright&qid=1635193780&s=books&sprefix=n.+t.+wright%2Cstripbooks%2C80&sr=1-16">N. T. Wright</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3VS3AQJSHIKS1&dchild=1&keywords=michael+licona&qid=1635193959&s=books&sprefix=michael+licona%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-3">Michael Licona</a>, among others, have argued in meticulous detail (somewhat less orthodox, though not entirely skeptical, is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Apologetics-Polemics-History/dp/0567697568/ref=sr_1_3?crid=4C3DV3JT119X&dchild=1&keywords=dale+allison&qid=1635194029&s=books&sprefix=dale+allison%2Cstripbooks%2C86&sr=1-3">Dale Allison</a>), not the least of which concerns the conversion and testimony of the Apostle Paul himself. In the nature of the case, historical reasoning cannot convey mathematical certainty. But the historical case, to my mind, is sufficient to justify belief. But what settles it for me, and I don't write this lightly, is the example provided by the life lived by my father as one thoroughly transformed by the grace of God. </span><span style="font-family: times;">As I wrote seven years ago, "</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times;">his life served as an embodied apologetic for the Christian faith."</span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTrfQcbPDs-SjAOxJpKEWF4tX1waNGsODrhZ_RQLPZc6YRy06Ig-M4QqSiugUhdZzH3rAICpjunBiAlIER6EMGmHwXYAn9ytuLFzplVaf6YujvQrbi7lywOu4vNjMldZMO5LpyhGRVpQ8/s2048/039.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1364" data-original-width="2048" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTrfQcbPDs-SjAOxJpKEWF4tX1waNGsODrhZ_RQLPZc6YRy06Ig-M4QqSiugUhdZzH3rAICpjunBiAlIER6EMGmHwXYAn9ytuLFzplVaf6YujvQrbi7lywOu4vNjMldZMO5LpyhGRVpQ8/w400-h266/039.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">With his friends and colleagues Gordon Ceperley and John Cawood,<br />Jerusalem, June 1976</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In particular, as a student and <i>de facto</i> disciple of the Apostle Paul, dad, having experienced the grace of God, was profoundly gripped by it and thoroughly absorbed the apostle's teaching on the subject. He was a man of uncompromising integrity and unfailing graciousness. To love God, for him as well as for the Torah and Jesus, entailed, as a necessary corollary, loving one's neighbor as oneself. For him, "considering others better than himself" (Philippians 2:3) wasn't simply a pious platitude to be passed over after it warmed one's heart; it actually <i>meant </i>we should look to the interests of people other than ourselves (Philippians 2:4). For him, the "cheap grace" of so much American fundamentalism had no currency. He knew that the incongruous grace (J. Barclay) that saved the undeserving was, through the Holy Spirit, both efficacious in calling people to faith, leading to their justification, <i>and </i>transformative, leading to the sanctification and "life" granted on the last day. And because he was a theologian of grace, this means as well that he was fundamentally a proponent of Paul's theology of the cross. His only boast, like that of the apostle, was in the cross, through which the relationship he had by birth to this present age had been definitively severed (Galatians 6:14). For it was at the foot of the cross that he, like I, like Martin Luther, and like all who have followed in the footsteps of Paul, had found grace in the person of the crucified Messiah and Savior who loved him and gave himself for him (Galatians 2:20). It is here, despite his brilliance and all his selfless service for God's people, that the ultimate simplicity of his faith comes to the fore, a simplicity which all of us should strive to emulate. I thank God each and every day that I was his son, that in God's providence I was privileged, not only to be taught the gospel plainly, but to see it embodied in one who remains my greatest teacher.</span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I conclude with words from what he described as his favorite hymn, "My Faith Has Found a Resting Place," written in 1891 by Eliza Edmunds Hewitt of Olivet Presbyterian Church at 22nd and Mt. Vernon Streets in the Fairmount section of Philadelphia, words that convey this simplicity in a nutshell:</span></p><p id="yui-gen24" style="border: 0px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>My faith has found a resting place,<br /></i><i>Not in device or creed;*<br /></i><i>I trust the ever living One,<br /></i><i>His wounds for me shall plead.</i></span></p><p class="refrain" id="yui-gen35" style="border: 0px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 12px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>I need no other argument,<br /></i><i>I need no other plea,<br /></i><i>It is enough that Jesus died,<br /></i><i>And that He died for me.</i></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span>*For those wont to criticize the apparent anti-creedal nature of Ms. Hewitt's lyrics here, remember that she was a Presbyterian, and thus not averse to creeds or confessions. Her point is a salutary one: creeds and confessions are good</span><span>―indeed, I would argue, failure at catechesis is one one the primary causes of evangelicalism's current malaise and downfall</span></span><span style="font-family: times;">―but simple creedal assent, though necessary, is not sufficient. Saving faith involves more than knowledge and conviction of the truth of the gospel. It involves trust, the entrusting of ourselves to Christ as Savior and Lord (<i>notitia, assensus, fiducia</i>).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy3wUZ3OFXBgT2lXipTwpXXJhWR45dcMUf5zmC1kBEJM7_DMPRGzgb6QwzwixY1ROQ2GR3wbKGxeicrKEXUynGCShf1X6dodukChNMQxTKQJiGRg8iUJ3iZaJQEXukZja34aCatDU19Tc/s2048/073.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1364" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy3wUZ3OFXBgT2lXipTwpXXJhWR45dcMUf5zmC1kBEJM7_DMPRGzgb6QwzwixY1ROQ2GR3wbKGxeicrKEXUynGCShf1X6dodukChNMQxTKQJiGRg8iUJ3iZaJQEXukZja34aCatDU19Tc/w426-h640/073.jpg" width="426" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">With his friend Ted Deibler, Dallas, January 1980</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifDkSMEVDV16GVpa_Pcva5XNfaFUKK0N5FzdT6AjIOeo-Nyzt_Cjo73tAEc67iNtd1K5Jj6JQpG25RaudyiXJTvWUuU0DzctiALMG1dbmfJcuYgQT77p-hKv_UKqVVx8UjmXM7_2n0dsk/s2048/007-001.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1367" data-original-width="2048" height="429" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifDkSMEVDV16GVpa_Pcva5XNfaFUKK0N5FzdT6AjIOeo-Nyzt_Cjo73tAEc67iNtd1K5Jj6JQpG25RaudyiXJTvWUuU0DzctiALMG1dbmfJcuYgQT77p-hKv_UKqVVx8UjmXM7_2n0dsk/w640-h429/007-001.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Holding his first grandchild, my daughter Lauren, Havertown, July 1982</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq8NKhh9SUx8jkQji_52Lqae4tD45oNuru2XEJj1YVyY23J-PbGIobQGPHYNDAcx560jqDlaKU2vCxWESlj4Ik-WYsnrDN4NzpbvNTW6mMNbF4fumxRasUJ9HtVY361SJvxBa1yaz-c24/s2048/058.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1370" data-original-width="2048" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq8NKhh9SUx8jkQji_52Lqae4tD45oNuru2XEJj1YVyY23J-PbGIobQGPHYNDAcx560jqDlaKU2vCxWESlj4Ik-WYsnrDN4NzpbvNTW6mMNbF4fumxRasUJ9HtVY361SJvxBa1yaz-c24/w640-h428/058.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">At my Th.M. graduation, Dallas, 29 April 1985</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimXbeeThfXQrWIQApEpoi8AIvDLmjhT0YY0BymEW2QvOKlQeAFAf_oL_Tcfy78F-grtpQy8v0qhT0hyZNsSViBPe4OqNT3hrnYt3rulEtGyY9wXb9hQrlN3ybIGLkbhgCInBziLPcVdd8/s2048/011-001.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1359" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimXbeeThfXQrWIQApEpoi8AIvDLmjhT0YY0BymEW2QvOKlQeAFAf_oL_Tcfy78F-grtpQy8v0qhT0hyZNsSViBPe4OqNT3hrnYt3rulEtGyY9wXb9hQrlN3ybIGLkbhgCInBziLPcVdd8/w424-h640/011-001.jpg" width="424" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">My last picture of dad: Ocean City, New Jersey, July 1986</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-51652361784492214352021-10-21T05:55:00.001-07:002021-10-21T08:00:03.512-07:0021 October 1980: Mike Schmidt, Tug McGraw, and 97 Years of Philly Phutility Erased on One Glorious South Philadelphia Night<p> </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqoPgHoUzwoyOBtKIQg8qESyWeD1dc7JqxDoKs2BBfMXc6wmN-Fhho0EzTnbdj1oyhuUWWnAFoPBG9dLlSSBcvQwvSwQS4-DlIJTa9JLi1oZBcLnVd8tZEr9LTw1HUPhf5PY14XLPDGDM/s825/McGrawTug-1980.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="825" height="396" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqoPgHoUzwoyOBtKIQg8qESyWeD1dc7JqxDoKs2BBfMXc6wmN-Fhho0EzTnbdj1oyhuUWWnAFoPBG9dLlSSBcvQwvSwQS4-DlIJTa9JLi1oZBcLnVd8tZEr9LTw1HUPhf5PY14XLPDGDM/w640-h396/McGrawTug-1980.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Tug McGraw and Mike Schmidt celebrating after the Tugger struck out Willie Wilson to win the 1980 World Series<br />(photo courtesy of the Philadelphia Phillies)<br /></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>10:59 PM CST, Tuesday, October 21, 1980. My wife, Teri, and I were in Dallas, sitting in the living room of our friend, my fellow seminarian (and Philadelphian) Putter Cox, in rapt attention as Kansas City Royals outfielder Willie Wilson waved and missed at a Tug McGraw (sort of) fastball to strike out with the bases loaded to preserve a 4-1 Phillies victory and a 4-2 series victory, the first World Series crown in the 97-year history of the franchise―the last of the "original sixteen" teams to win the title, once the Baltimore Orioles (née St. Louis Browns) won their first crown in 1966. Immediately I rushed screaming, "Phillies," at the top of my estimable lungs into the Dallas night, where the clueless neighbors in the apartment complex</span><span>―Dallas, to say the least, was not a baseball town</span><span>―had no idea what this apparently deranged Yankee was up to. To this day, I consider this moment</span><span>―not the '74 Flyers Stanley Cup, the '67 or '83 Sixers NBA titles, the '08 Phils World Series championship, or even the February '18 Eagles Super Bowl victory, the greatest in Philadelphia sports history. Even today, 41 years after the event, tears come to my eyes as I write about it.</span></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXHzqFKaCbwdqO-Ya05NKiGUN4ZLrtZ7S2Sj3q8W5pzX7lCEcbpLju92CmTpJFdCTQIqIYjc-F48dVQy9NFLMlDNwPByCSe-LDYZJHf5ecBcZ7_hzgNIbwin53dEnY38DfGgxd9h1gKs8/s978/Dw4ZTNhW0AA2okR.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="978" data-original-width="700" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXHzqFKaCbwdqO-Ya05NKiGUN4ZLrtZ7S2Sj3q8W5pzX7lCEcbpLju92CmTpJFdCTQIqIYjc-F48dVQy9NFLMlDNwPByCSe-LDYZJHf5ecBcZ7_hzgNIbwin53dEnY38DfGgxd9h1gKs8/w229-h320/Dw4ZTNhW0AA2okR.jpg" width="229" /></a></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">1980 was a strange year to be a Philadelphia sports fan. No city had a more infamous history of losing than my home town. The Phillies, famously, were the losingest franchise in American professional sports history. Indeed, in the "modern" era of baseball, between the years of 1900 and 1976, when they won the NL East with a (then) team record of 101 wins, the Phillies won a grand total of <i>two</i> (!) National League pennants and <i>zero</i> World Series titles. And in their two World Series appearances, they won a grand total of <i>one</i> game, Game 1 of the 1915 series, when the great Pete Alexander outdueled Ernie Shore of the Red Sox (who was removed for pinch-hitter Babe Ruth), 3-1. In the 35 years between their pennants of 1915 and 1950, they finished in 8th place (in an 8 team league) <i>16 times</i>, and in 7th place another <i>8</i> <i>times</i>. The <i>highest</i> they finished between 1917 (2nd place, after which they traded 30 game winner Alexander) and 1949 (3rd place) was their 4th place finish in 1932, behind the bats of Chuck Klein (38/137/.348) and Don Hurst (24/143/.339), both of whom thrived in the cozy confines of the Baker Bowl's short Lifebuoy-themed rightfield wall. Indeed, their 78-76 record that year was their only winning record in the span of 31 years, plenty of time for the fabled Philly cynicism to grow and thrive (leading one intrepid fan to break in to the park and add "and they still stink" to the ad, "The Phillies use Lifebuoy," in 1936).</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But 1980 was different. The Flyers, winners of the Stanley Cup in both 1974 and 1975, continued to be powerhouses. Indeed, from October 13, 1979 through January 6, 1980, they went 25-0-10, setting a record for consecutive games without a loss. They went on to win the Clarence Campbell Conference before bowing to the New York Islanders, 4 games to 2, in the Stanley Cup Finals. The Sixers, meanwhile, were in year 3 of Julius Erving's promise of "We Owe You One" after blowing the 1977 championship series to Portland that they had led, 2 games to none. With the arrival of Larry Bird in Boston, things had become more difficult, and so, despite winning 59 games, they finished in second place, 2 games behind the Celtics. Surprisingly, however, they dispatched of Boston in 5 games in the Eastern Conference Finals before succumbing to Magic Johnson and the Lakers in the NBA Finals. The Eagles, meanwhile, who had last won the NFL championship in 1960, had only one winning season between 1961 and 1978, when they snuck in to the playoffs by securing a Wild Card berth with a 9-7 record. But after an 11-5 record and a Playoff win over the Bears in 1979, in October of 1980 they were in first place and on their way to their first Super Bowl. Indeed, on October 19, they met their arch rivals, the Dallas Cowboys, at Veterans Stadium, in a battle of 5-1 teams, and prevailed, 17-10, in a preview of the NFC Championship Game to come in three months time. I was very happy that afternoon. But the best was yet to come.</span></p><p></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9D55jK_76PXkzRVx9i16u1BPfYmEbJJKMpJBlKUCiNTfOMkyQ_MA-R8Ngs4zv13obRFJwrH0WGgfsXnac-T1Pgnu9Cln-sN20qGRePa5o8ZfDeQNDmt812jkVIkX9Bi6b1Jcbz8viLjY/s1296/pete+rose.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1296" data-original-width="1296" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9D55jK_76PXkzRVx9i16u1BPfYmEbJJKMpJBlKUCiNTfOMkyQ_MA-R8Ngs4zv13obRFJwrH0WGgfsXnac-T1Pgnu9Cln-sN20qGRePa5o8ZfDeQNDmt812jkVIkX9Bi6b1Jcbz8viLjY/w400-h400/pete+rose.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Pete Rose in action, 1979 (AP Photo/Rusty Kennedy)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-family: times;">By contrast, in the summer of 1980, things didn't look so good for the Phillies. The core of the team remained from the great teams that won 101 games and the East Division titles in 1976-77, only to lose to the Big Red Machine in '76 and (in excruciating fashion) to the Dodgers in '77 (on that loss and its consequences, see my post <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/10/black-friday-7-october-1977-worst-loss.html">here</a>), and also the somewhat lesser divisional champions of 1978: Steve Carlton, Mike Schmidt, Bob Boone, Larry Bowa, Garry Maddox, Greg Luzinski, Tug McGraw, Ron Reed, Larry Christenson. Bake McBride, the catalyst of the great '77 team, remained as well. After the noticeable decline of 1978, GM Paul Owens made a couple of significant moves in an attempt to upgrade the club. He traded for slick-fielding second baseman Manny Trillo and reserve outfielder Del Unser, who had previously played for the team back in the darker days of 1973-74. Most importantly, in perhaps the most consequential move of his great career, he signed 38-year old Pete Rose to a record, 4-year, $3.2 million free agent contract. Rose, Owens believed, was just what the doctor ordered to get the "too cool for their own good" Phils off their butts and light a fire under them to get them over the top. But things didn't work out as planned. Rose came as advertised. In '79, he hit .331 with a league-leading OBP of .418. Schmidt rebounded from his subpar '78 season to hit 45 homers and drive in 114 runs. But the team still finished 7th in the NL in runs scored and 10th in ERA (even the 18-game winning Carlton's was 3.63, only good enough for a 106 ERA+). When, after losing to the Reds on August 29, their 5th straight and 8 in 9 games, to fall to 65-67 on the season, 12.5 behind the Pirates and mired in 5th place, Owens did the unthinkable: he fired the player-friendly Danny Ozark and replaced him with the team's Director of Player of Development, former pitcher Dallas Green. Green was the polar opposite of Ozark: a screamer, confrontational, given to profanity-laced tirades, and not afraid to go public with his criticisms of players. Needless to say, the players didn't like it, but they rebounded to go 19-11 the rest of the way to finish 84-78, in 4th place, 14 games behind Pittsburgh.</span></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN2pMxLn1Lp6iVjToFxHzbyZoGXRSbQvmVzpWpvgT2tNbesu7nn3vILYmfIzKKBGlypJdre9b7KtzL38HurtxCtCqU7J1CHuhLyDiQjKuAUzpDeRZRrWFtZI4Rdg091WnixHoKmwLWjZQ/s834/23green-obit-articleLarge.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="834" data-original-width="600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN2pMxLn1Lp6iVjToFxHzbyZoGXRSbQvmVzpWpvgT2tNbesu7nn3vILYmfIzKKBGlypJdre9b7KtzL38HurtxCtCqU7J1CHuhLyDiQjKuAUzpDeRZRrWFtZI4Rdg091WnixHoKmwLWjZQ/w288-h400/23green-obit-articleLarge.jpg" width="288" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Dallas Green (AP Photo)</span></td></tr></tbody></table></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As the 1980 season began, management put the players on notice: win this year or else the team―the most talented and winningest team in franchise history―would be broken up. Yet they still were less than thrilled with Green's "rah rah," "we, not I" style. And the pundits didn't give the Phillies much of a chance, either. After all, the Pirates were the defending World Champions, and the youthful Expos were rising fast with up and coming stars approaching their primes such as future Hall of Famers Gary Carter and Andre Dawson, along with Ellis Valentine, Scott Sanderson and veteran starter Steve Rogers. And for much of the season, the pundits looked prescient. Sure, they hung around, bouncing around from 1st to 3rd place through the season's first four months. But they never got better than 9 games over .500, which they achieved three times, on June 18, July 12, and July 18. Each time they did so, they promptly hit the skids. Starting on June 19, they lost 7 of 9; beginning on July 13, they lost 3 straight; then, starting on July 19, they promptly lost 6 in a row to fall 4 behind the Bucs and 1.5 behind Montreal. Then, after a somnambulant 7-1 loss to Pittsburgh in the first game of a twin bill on August 10 to drop their record to 55-51, 5 games behind the Bucs and 5.5 behind the Expos, Green called a team meeting and <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/philly/sports/Dallas-Green-a-classic-tirade.html">lowered the boom with a profanity-laced tirade</a> against their complacency and "cool" (a coded reference to Schmidt) that even Rose's incandescence couldn't overcome. If Green's meeting had any effect, it didn't show, as they put in yet another lackluster effort in the nightcap, losing 4-1 to fall 6 games off the pace. Even the great Daily News columnist, Ray Didinger, opined at the time that "</span><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.08px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Phillies have about as much chance of winning the National League East as Ted Kennedy has of stealing the Democratic nomination away from Jimmy Carter." I rarely disagree with Ray Diddy, but for once, thankfully, he was mistaken.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">As a result, the players called their own meeting the next day when they got to Chicago to play the Cubs. Forget Green, they decided. Let's play for ourselves, they vowed. And, for once, it worked. They went 36-19 the rest of the way (after losing 2 in a row badly to the Padres in San Diego on August 29-30, GM Owens himself called a meeting with the team to rip them in San Francisco before a 3-game series with the Giants on the 1st of September. They would go 23-11 the rest of the way). When, on October 2, they defeated the Cubs, 4-2, at the Vet, they moved into a tie with Montreal for the division lead. And it was off to Montreal for the final and decisive 3-game series of the year to decide who would win the NL East. On Friday, October 3, the Phillies drew first blood as Mike Schmidt drove in both runs with his 47th homer and a sac fly to support Dick Ruthven, with Tug McGraw providing a 6-out save, striking out 5 for good measure, in the Phils' 2-1 victory. Then, on Saturday, October 4, Bob Boone singled with 2 out in the 9th to drive in Rose with the tying run to send the game into extra frames. In the 11th inning, Rose led off with a single and, with one out, Schmidt hit the most important home run of his career to this point, a tape measure blast to left that gave the Phils the 6-4 win and the team's 4th divisional title in 5 years. McGraw got the win with 3 innings of 1-hit relief, striking out 4.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="397" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rCwBmeaXZEI" width="476" youtube-src-id="rCwBmeaXZEI"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Credit for the Phils' title has rightly gone largely to Hall of Famers Schmidt and Steve Carlton. Schmidt had his finest season to date, smashing 48 homers, driving in 121 runs, and hitting a then-career-high .286 to go along with his Gold Glove defense. Most significantly, whether or not there was a causal correlation or not, he went on a tear after Green's tirade, hitting .338 and slugging .715, with 21 home runs and 48 RBI in his 56 games after August 11. Carlton, meanwhile, rebounded from his somewhat subpar '79 season to have his best year since 1972, going 24-9 with a 2.34 ERA and a league-leading 286 strikeouts. In the process, he become the last pitcher in MLB history to pitch 300 innings in a season, with 304 (not counting his work in the postseason). Schmidt's MVP and Carlton's Cy Young Awards were well-deserved and hardly surprising when given after the season.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Schmidt's and Carlton's great seasons were needed, in part, because many of the team's players, whether due to age or injury, had off seasons. Catcher Bob Boone hit only .229; Secretary of Defense Garry Maddox dropped 22 points to .259; Greg Luzinski, though only 29, continued his precipitous drop from his 1975-78 peak by hitting a measly .228 with 19 homers; even Rose seemed to show his age, with his average dropping 49 points to .282, its lowest point since 1964. Of the remaining starters, only Bake McBride (.309) and defensive wizard Larry Bowa (.267) batted to expectations.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But where some long-time starters faded, others on the roster picked up the slack, none more so than Tug McGraw, the gregarious Irishman who had his best season at age 35. McGraw appeared in 23 of the 55 games after August 11. In these appearances, he pitched 39.1 innings, allowed 23 hits, 5 walks, <i>and allowed 1 earned run</i>, striking out 33 batters, for an ERA of 0.22, winning 5 games and saving 9. In the decisive September-October run, the Tugger did not allow a run in his last 15 appearances, covering 25 innings. For the season, his ERA was a minuscule 1.47, earning him 5th place in the Cy Young voting. During the stretch run, Green also relied heavily on three rookies, outfielder Lonnie Smith, who hit .339 in 298 at bats; catcher Keith Moreland, who hit .314 in 159 at bats; and September call-up Marty Bystrom, who won all five of his starts down the stretch, finishing with a 1.50 ERA in 36 innings.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Thrilling as their pursuit of the Expos was, the Phils had no time to celebrate. On their plate in the NLCS was a formidable opponent, the Houston Astros, winners of the NL West with a 93-70 record after defeating the Dodgers in a one-game playoff. The Astros, playing in the spacious Astrodome, were masters of small ball, and had baseball's best pitching staff, even after their ace, J. R. Richard, suffered a stroke while on the mound in July. Their staff included starters Joe Niekro, Nolan Ryan, Ken Forsch, and Vern Ruhle, and shutdown relievers Joe Sambito, Dave Smith, and Frank LaCorte. What promised to be a fine series turned into the greatest series in postseason baseball history. [As an aside, game 3 was played on a Friday afternoon; at the time, I was a second year seminarian with a brutal academic schedule and a part-time afternoon job working at a downtown Dallas law firm, which I got to via bus; fortuitously, that week a transit strike was called, so I used that as an excuse not to go to work; instead, I watched the game on TV in a lounge at the school, where I was―sigh―the only one rooting for the Phillies.] After the Phillies won game 1, 3-1, behind Steve Carlton, games 2-5 all went into extra innings, the Phillies winning games 4 and 5 in Houston. Game 5 on Sunday, October 12, was particularly memorable, as the Phils entered the 8th down 5-2 against Nolan Ryan, before they rallied for 5 runs to take the lead, only for the Astros to tie it back up before Maddox doubled in the winning run in the 10th. The feisty Bowa, the longest-tenured Phillie (his tenure as the team's starting shortstop dated to 1970, the team's last at Connie Mack Stadium), who had started the rally against Ryan with a single, said that after the pressure of that series, he wasn't worried about the World Series. He knew they would win.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="349" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7IXChwnynj0" width="421" youtube-src-id="7IXChwnynj0"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>But the Kansas City Royals, winners of 97 games, who had slain their own demons by defeating their own nemesis, the 103-win New York Yankees, the very team that had defeated them in the ALCS in each of the three seasons of 1976-78, remained in the way of the Phillies'</span><span>―and the city of Philadelphia's</span><span>― dreams. And the series would begin in just two days, on Tuesday, the 14th, at Veteran's Stadium in South Philly. That blustery, cool evening there was "The Voice of God," NFL Films' (and Philadelphia's own) John Facenda opening the festivities; there was Philadelphia native Andrea McArdle, of "Annie" fame on Broadway, singing the National Anthem, there were 65,791 fans packing the Vet; and there was me, as well as millions of others of the vast Philadelphia diaspora throughout America, powering an unprecedented television viewership that night: 26 million households, and an astronomical 33.5 share of the national TV audience.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But the game began badly. Because Carlton had started on the 11th in game 4 of the Houston series, he was unavailable, so Green inserted Bob Walk, who had not pitched in the NLCS, and who, though he had a respectable 11-7 record during the regular season, sported a pedestrian, at best, ERA of 4.57. And the Royals struck early. Amos Otis smacked a 2-run homer in the 2nd and Willie Mays Aikens a 2-run blast in the 3rd, giving Kansas City and their 20-game winner Dennis Leonard a 4-0 lead going into the bottom of the 3rd. Then, with one out, Larry Bowa singled and, going against all received wisdom, stole second base to jumpstart the team. And jumpstart them he did. Bob Boone followed with a double to drive home Bowa. Lonnie Smith then singled to left, but was thrown out trying to stretch the hit to a double. Yet on the throw Booney scored, making it 4-2. After Rose was hit by a pitch and Schmitty walked, Bake McBride came up and slammed a 3-run blast over the fence in right to give the Phils a 5-4 lead they would not relinquish. McGraw once again pitched the final 2 innings to save the game for Walk. Game 1 to the Phils, 7-6.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="366" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qIwRFRLDxnQ" width="441" youtube-src-id="qIwRFRLDxnQ"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In game 2, the Phils overcame an uncharacteristically shaky outing by Carlton (10 hits, 6 walks, 3 earned runs in 8 innings) by scoring 4 runs in the bottom of the 8th to go up, 2 games to none. The big blow was Mike Schmidt's game-winning double to right off Dan Quisenberry. For Schmitty, who had a brutal NLCS against Houston, including an 0-5 with 3 K's in the deciding game 5, it was decidedly a new series indeed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But when the series moved to Kansas City for 3 games starting on Friday the 17th, things changed. Green's overuse of McGraw had started to take its toll on the affable lefty. Not only had the Tugger pitched 15 times (25 innings) in the season's stretch run, he had pitched in all 5 games of the NLCS and in game 1 of the World Series. In the 10th inning of game 3, Willie Aikens, who had hit 2 homers in game 1, singled in Willie Wilson, who had walked, with the winning run off McGraw. Then, in game 4, the Royals jumped all over Larry Christenson, scoring 4 runs in the 1st inning, as Aikens hit 2 more homers and the Royals evened the series with a 5-3 victory. This led to the pivotal game 5. Schmidt put the Phils up with a 2-run homer off Larry Gura in the 4th, but the Royals stormed back with 3 off Bystrom in the 5th and 6th to take a 3-2 lead. Which is where the score stayed until the top of the 9th inning, where the Phils once again rallied off the Royals' ace closer Quisenberry, who had won 12 games and led the majors with 33 saves during the regular season. A Schmidt single and Del Unser RBI double had tied the game, and then Manny Trillo lined a single off Quisenberry's leg for an infield single to give the Phils the lead, 4-3. Tug McGraw, in his second inning of work, would load the bases with walks, but finish the Royals off by striking out pinch hitter Jose Cardenal to send the series back to Philadelphia with the Phils on top, 3 games to 2.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="398" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bY_gNYKIWL4" width="480" youtube-src-id="bY_gNYKIWL4"></iframe></span></div><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In contrast to his game 2 start, Carlton had his best stuff in game 6. He had the Royals off balance all night. Through 7 innings, he had allowed no runs, only 3 hits and 2 walks, </span><span style="font-size: medium;">striking out 7. For their part, the Phils struck first in the bottom of the 3rd, when Mike Schmidt, with the bases loaded on a walk, an error, and a bunt single, ripped a line drive 2-RBI single to right center. The Phils would tack on insurance runs in the 5th on a Bake McBride groundout and in the 6th on a Bob Boone single. In the 8th, however, Carlton apparently tired under the weight of the 331.1 innings he had thus far pitched that season at the age of 35. He led off the inning by walking John Wathan and allowing a single to Jose Cardenal. So Green decided to make a difficult and perhaps questionable decision, replacing Lefty with the even more spent McGraw, who by this time was clearly running on fumes (which by this point were even becoming difficult to detect). Nonetheless, McGraw got out of the inning, allowing only one of the two inherited runners to score. After the Phils went down one, two, three, in the top of the 9th, McGraw went out to the hill to face the Royals for the bottom of the 9th … and his immortal place in Philadelphia sports history.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>The inning started well, as the Tugger reached back and struck out Amos Otis with a curve ball. But he then walked Aikens … And Wathan singled </span></span><span>…</span><span> And Cardenal smashed a line drive single to center to load the bases. Bases loaded. One out. Frank White the batter. On the first pitch McGraw induced the overeager White to pop it up foul in front of the Phillies dugout. Boone settled under it </span><span>… and promptly dropped it, only to have it bounce straight into the glove of Rose, who was backing up the play. As the Brooklyn Dodgers' old GM Branch Rickey used to like to say, "Luck is the residue of design."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="359" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t2uGm6XEbLQ" width="432" youtube-src-id="t2uGm6XEbLQ"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">That brought up the great Willie Wilson, who led the AL in hits (230), runs (133), triples (15), stole 79 bases and batted .326 during the regular season, but who had gone only 4-25 thus far in the series. K-9 cops circled the stands around the infield in anticipation of hordes of rabid Philly fans storming the field after the hoped-for victory. After two screwballs put Wilson down, 0-2, McGraw threw a "fastball" that just missed. Then, with the count 1-2, he threw another one down Broadway that Willie inexplicably swung through, and the Phillies had finally, after 97 years, won their first championship.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="357" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lPcFeaLLltY" width="428" youtube-src-id="lPcFeaLLltY"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">To this day, 41 years down the line, the memory of the reserved Schmidt, the Series MVP with a .381 average, 2 homers, and 7 RBI, leaping on McGraw after the final out, and then Green and GM Paul "The Pope" Owens crying during their interview with Bryant Gumbel in the locker room, remain etched in my mind. The game remains, not only my most precious sports memory, but also, amazingly, the most watched World Series game in history: more than 31 million households in America watched the game, an unprecedented and unsurpassed 40.0 rating.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">As I mentioned earlier, this victory was the first in the 97-year history of the franchise. Yet there was never any national hoopla over this fact, in contrast to the overwrought attention and pity given to the "poor" fans of the Cubs because of the so-called "Billy Goat Curse" and to fans of the Red Sox because of the "Curse of the Bambino." Of course, by the time 1980 had rolled around, the Cubs and their fans had garnered even more sympathy because of their collapse in 1969, but even so, they had won 10 NL titles in the 20th century (most recently in 1945), and 2 World Series in 1907-08. The Sox, to be sure, had not won a World Series since inexplicably trading away Babe Ruth after the 1919 season. And they had, just two years earlier in 1978, blown the 9 game lead over the Yankees they had on August 13. But they had won 9 AL pennants in the 20th century, most recently in 1967 and 1976, and had 5 World Series titles under their belts (1903, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1918). The Phils, by contrast, had <i>two </i>pennants and <i>zero </i>World Series championships. Even worse, for long time Philadelphians, the city's most beloved team, Connie Mack's A's, had been forced to leave town for Kansas City in 1955 (note that the other two cities that were forced to give up one of their teams, Boston and St. Louis, lost the weaker of their franchises, the Braves and Browns, respectively). It was the A's, after all, who had won 8 AL pennants and 5 World Series titles, and whose 1929-31 clubs, featuring Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Mickey Cochrane, and Al Simmons had dominated the Ruth-Gehrig Yankees, <i>averaged</i> over 104 wins per season (in a 154-game schedule), won 3 AL pennants and 2 World Series championships, and thus have a claim to being one of the greatest teams in baseball history. The Phillies, meanwhile, … just stunk. No cute curse. Just decades of losing and uninspired play, with hostile, cynical fans to boot, for whose plight no one, least of all the city's natural and haughty geographical rivals 90 miles to the northeast in New York, gave a toss.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhadEdWVkqno983KAff2U2IG81HTrNifa5PexxU4MUGQgeQBjvS2wW1R9qmB_ejFfdZj-oQ4UbYLFqMbVq9HKln-4vN_bcZyWDweWMweilQFvuYMoFSFORI_9GcV8CQ3bhvibPh7eV8rAk/s1600/R.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1067" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhadEdWVkqno983KAff2U2IG81HTrNifa5PexxU4MUGQgeQBjvS2wW1R9qmB_ejFfdZj-oQ4UbYLFqMbVq9HKln-4vN_bcZyWDweWMweilQFvuYMoFSFORI_9GcV8CQ3bhvibPh7eV8rAk/s320/R.jpg" width="213" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 10.56px;">Larry Bowa and Mike Schmidt celebrating</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 10.56px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 10.56px;">in the Phils' 1980 World Series Championship</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 10.56px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 10.56px;">parade on South Broad Street</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 10.56px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 10.56px;">(image@lancasteronline.com)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This legacy, such as it was, came crashing down on the night of October 21, 1980. At long last the Phillies, and by proxy, the city of Philadelphia, played second fiddle to no one. Never was this made more clear than the very next day when the city hosted a victory parade in Center City and the three miles down South Broad Street to the old JFK Stadium, where an estimated 1.5 million screaming fans lined the confetti-strewn streets and over 100,000 packed the stadium to honor the team. Pete Rose, the winner of two World Series with his hometown Big Red Machine, wrote in the book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Good-Bad-Ugly-Philadelphia-Phillies-ebook/dp/B003TXSR8W/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Good%2C+The+Bad%2C+%26+The+Ugly%3A+Heart-Pounding%2C+Jaw-Dropping+and+Gut-Wrenching+Moments+from+Philadelphia+Phillies+History&qid=1634277640&s=books&sr=1-1">The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly: Philadelphia Phillies</a>: </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: medium;">“The most awesome sight I’ve ever seen in sports -- and this is Pete Rose talking -- was the post-World Series parade. To see a million people in the street on Broad Street and to have 130,000 people for us at JFK Stadium, it was unbelievable. It’s a sight I’ll never forget. Yeah, that’s the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.”</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Looking back on this celebration, it is helpful to view it in terms of what it meant, not only for the team, but <i>for the city of Philadelphia itself</i>. The '74-75 Flyers parades (the latter of which I attended) and '83 Sixers parade all were massive events attracting more than a million people, but these were primarily <i>celebratory</i> in nature. By contrast, and not to detract from the celebratory character of the events, the only real analog I can think of to the 1980 Phillies parade was the February 2018 Eagles Super Bowl parade (which I was also privileged to attend). The Phillies and Eagles parades were more than celebratory. They were <i>cathartic</i> events. For Philadelphia is as great a sports town as exists in America, and for vast numbers of its citizens, their self-image is reflected, not in their city's peerless historical significance or cultural treasures like the Philadelphia Orchestra, but in their sports franchises, in particular in their two longest tenured ones, the Phillies and Eagles.</span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="622" data-original-width="666" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMky6R-Hbn8Rmz_KqtRmB_buyplxpEvhezKRA2IGYfHDWqXWO6ZHx5P6RdigZWgbIeXYd6P8Y4_9JcAATWglBBE6BdrXHbL4WNlNbfEfOpoS3JiZAnkWG0QHRlgETM8lD9vv1aItUJ674/w200-h187/Voila_Capture-2018-02-08_06-01-12_PM.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="200" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">For years, living in both Dallas and in Lancaster, PA, I was frustrated by ignorant football fans who ridiculed the Eagles and their fans for never having won a Super Bowl. Never mind that the Eagles had won NFL Championships in 1948-49 and in 1960 (this was especially galling when coming from fans of the NY Yankees who would never stand for anybody dismissing as irrelevant the titles earned by Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Berra, and Mantle, all of which were earned before Super Bowl I was played; did the NFL begin with the Super Bowl era?). Unlike the national media and fans who sympathized with fans from Boston and Chicago for their long World Series droughts, Philadelphia's football team and its surly fans―oh my, they booed Santa Claus; the horror!―were held up for ridicule and condescension, which served as the background for Eagles' center Jason Kelce's famous "No one likes us; we don't care" rant in front of the Art Museum at the parade. [Actually, truth be told, we do care, and we resent it greatly.] Winning the Super Bowl ended such malarkey once and for all, and the self-image of the citizenry was palpably different for some time to come (It has since returned to normal, but that is a story for a different time.)</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The same was even more true of Philadelphia in 1980. This was a city that once had been the largest and most important in the American colonies, the second-largest (after London) in the English-speaking world. It lost that distinction to New York as it lost its role as the banking and economic engine of the nation in the 19th century. It had been the nation's capitol, only to lose that distinction to the planned city of Washington. It had remained the 3rd-largest city in the nation as late as 1950. But in the decade of the 1970's, as de-industrialization sapped the American economy, the city lost 140,00 industrial jobs and, consequently, 260,000 people (abetted, of course, by the "white flight" that occurred at the confluence of government-encouraged suburbanization and the racism endemic to our nation). Edmund Bacon's well-publicized revitalization of Society Hill and Center City was to many, especially those living on the deteriorating fringe, nothing but lipstick on a pig. And the fortunes of the city's one remaining baseball team, the floundering Phillies, seemed to mirror those of the city they represented: 107 losses in 1961, <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/09/september-21-1964-most-infamous-day-in.html">the infamous 1964 collapse</a>, the 7 straight losing seasons between '68 and '74, the NLCS failures in '76-'78. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This is the context in which the Phillies' 1980 World Series victory has to be understood in its cultural impact on the city and its people: in this <i>one </i>series, this <i>one </i>game, this <i>one</i> Tug McGraw pitch to Willie Wilson, all this failure, all this futility (or "phutility") seemed to be wiped away―<i>expiated</i>, to use a theological term dear to my heart. This is what this meant to me and to my city. And, at bottom, it is why this game remains, to me, my greatest sports memory.</span></span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMky6R-Hbn8Rmz_KqtRmB_buyplxpEvhezKRA2IGYfHDWqXWO6ZHx5P6RdigZWgbIeXYd6P8Y4_9JcAATWglBBE6BdrXHbL4WNlNbfEfOpoS3JiZAnkWG0QHRlgETM8lD9vv1aItUJ674/s666/Voila_Capture-2018-02-08_06-01-12_PM.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-85527128786843644932021-10-07T07:36:00.006-07:002021-10-07T07:54:35.411-07:00Black Friday, 7 October 1977: The Worst Loss in Phillies History<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EoHlsdNDWOY" width="459" youtube-src-id="EoHlsdNDWOY"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Black Friday. To Philadelphia sports fans of a certain age that expression conjures up images, not of (now happily declining due to internet commerce) harried Christmas shoppers looking for deals at suburban malls the day after Thanksgiving, but of a baseball game played at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia on the afternoon of October 7, 1977, four years before the expression was first used, in the <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i>, to explain the day after Thanksgiving's role in putting retailers "into the black."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I am referring, of course, to game 3 of a deadlocked, one game apiece best-of-5 National League Championship Series between the 101-win, NL Eastern Division champ Phillies and the 98-win Los Angeles Dodgers, the champions of the NL's Western Division. Last month I recalled <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/09/september-21-1964-most-infamous-day-in.html">the collapse of the 1964 Phillies</a> and the bizarre event that began it all, the naked steal of home by the obscure Chico Ruiz on September 21 of that year. But whereas that "infamous" collapse took place in slow motion, as it were, over 10 excruciating days, the collapse of the 1977 Phillies, no less bizarre, but infinitely more catastrophic considering how good the team was, came shockingly quickly, in the span of a mere 10 <i>minutes</i> in the top of the 9th inning of a game they led by 2 runs with 2 outs and no one on base.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The 1977 Phillies were, if not the best, certainly the most talented team in the checkered, 139-year history of the club, whose 11,112 losses remain the most of any franchise in American professional sports history (runner-up are the Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves at 10,757; methinks the Phillies' record is safe for a few more generations). From 1968-1974, it was business as usual: the team had seven consecutive losing seasons, averaging more than 91 losses per year. But things were about to change. Good trades, most notably those for starting pitcher Steve Carlton in 1972, second baseman Dave Cash in 1974, and outfielder Garry Maddox in 1975, the development of homegrown talent such as outfielder Greg Luzinski, catcher Bob Boone, shortstop Larry Bowa, and especially third baseman Mike Schmidt, and the inculcation of a new attitude by the infectious enthusiasm of Cash led to a breakthrough in 1975, when they won 86 games and finished in second, 6.5 games behind the Pirates.</span></p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi98ZL-hWdB3xWlREO5W7De4dzwDXrhyphenhyphenTHSaLhDGU9Mqw9o2YlZybUmtFEtaMTXG5auLLcoCeiysz14tSxIUuro5k16_sGHhnST9YaSSu94DK6CHX5kHSD9CcOdjQ7LpXj_g6avKpVtK8I/s180/schmidt.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="149" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi98ZL-hWdB3xWlREO5W7De4dzwDXrhyphenhyphenTHSaLhDGU9Mqw9o2YlZybUmtFEtaMTXG5auLLcoCeiysz14tSxIUuro5k16_sGHhnST9YaSSu94DK6CHX5kHSD9CcOdjQ7LpXj_g6avKpVtK8I/w333-h400/schmidt.jpg" width="333" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mike Schmidt <br />(photo credit: John Iacono, <i>Sports Illustrated</i>)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Then came 1976, when they sprinted out of the gate and blew away the competition from the start. They compiled a 56-25 record the first half of the season (I still remember going to games and the computerized scoreboard precipitantly bragging "Baseball's Best" when the team took the field to start the game), and by August 26 had built their lead over the Pirates to 15 games. Heck, even the 1951 Brooklyn Dodgers couldn't have blown that lead! But they tried. Dredging up the ghosts of blown pennants past, they promptly lost 8 in a row and 13 out of 15. When, after sweeping the lowly Expos, they proceeded to lose two more to the Bucs and one to the Cubs on a walk-off single by Jerry Morales off Ron Reed, they stood a mere 3 games ahead of Pittsburgh with 16 to play. But they managed to right the ship, winning 13 of their last 17 to finish the season with a (then) team record 101 wins and a spot in the NLCS, where they met the buzz saw known as the Big Red Machine of Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Tony Perez, George Foster et al., and were promptly swept by the eventual World Series champions.</span><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXjgD0M2arFSWDAQNSNELCW0Ari8kbl_4UEs0w46phyphenhyphen-sutdZz04C33pbE6xRDvS3Sc3nbL7blsrNYedE39axBNgd9kcOY-F8XhWKY8GPVViszYe7gOH_2YSCvbp0uv8y_R_f4fxn1Rl4/s558/1977-TRADED-BAKE-MCBRIDE.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="558" height="289" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXjgD0M2arFSWDAQNSNELCW0Ari8kbl_4UEs0w46phyphenhyphen-sutdZz04C33pbE6xRDvS3Sc3nbL7blsrNYedE39axBNgd9kcOY-F8XhWKY8GPVViszYe7gOH_2YSCvbp0uv8y_R_f4fxn1Rl4/w400-h289/1977-TRADED-BAKE-MCBRIDE.jpg" width="400" /></a><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">1977 started out completely differently. In the off season they suffereed a major blow when they lost their all star second baseman, Cash, to free agency, and subtracted their over-the-hill first baseman Dick Allen via release. In their place they picked up the serviceable Ted Sizemore and grave digger Richie Hebner. And things didn't start well. They managed to lose 6 of their first 7 games to the lowly Expos and mediocre Cubs, and didn't get over the .500 mark until their 27th game, by which time they were mired in 4th place, 5 games off the pace. On June 15th, they remained stuck in 4th place, 8 games off the pace with a 31-28 record, when they made their most significant move of the season, one reminiscent of the one the Cardinals had made on June 14, 1964, when that eventual championship team had been 7 games off the pace and traded for Lou Brock: they dealt pitcher Tom Underwood and outfielders Rick Bosetti and Dane Iorg for creaky-kneed, though electric, outfielder Arnold Ray "Shake 'n Bake" McBride, who would go on to hit .339 the rest of the way for the Phils with 11 homers and 27 stolen bases in 85 games. The team would finally hit their stride in late July and move into first place on August 5. They would win 13 in a row from August 3-16, and then, after a rare Carlton shellacking by the Expos, 6 more from the 18th to the 23rd, making it 19 out of 20, during which time they built a 7.5 game lead over Pittsburgh. At season's end, they once again had racked up 101 wins to match their total from the previous season. Their home record, meanwhile, 60-21, was staggering. They led the league in runs, batting average (.279), and slugging, and were second in homers (behind only the Dodgers). Future Hall of Fame third baseman Schmidt had the <i>lowest</i> batting average among the starting eight at .274, while his 38 home runs and 101 RBI were only good enough for <i>second best</i> on the club, behind Luzinski, whose 39 homers and 130 RBI were accompanied by a .309 batting average. Schmidt and Maddox (along with pitcher Jim Kaat) each won Gold Gloves, and both Bowa and Boone were likewise in the upper echelon of defenders at their positions. Carlton won 23 games and posted a 2.64 ERA to win the second of his 4 Cy Young Awards, and the team boasted four relievers―Gene Garber, Ron Reed, Tug McGraw, and Warren Brusstar―with sub-3.00 ERA's, 7+ wins and 46 combined saves. But what really separated this team from all others was its bench: Davey Johnson, 8 homers and a .321 average in 186 at bats; Carlton's own designated catcher, Tim McCarver, 6 homers and a .320 average in 169 at bats; defensive specialist first baseman Tommy Hutton, .309 average in 81 at bats; and defensive specialist outfielder Jerry Martin</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikhTHy8BGsHGN08bkGCyD2r8Jtce1OcI4_suBuiKpvk4bBnIKGdE-SfP5U92xZE28Gv9ySLmyLRRz6kB-LwPloHieUXkqAUxZCDs0JC61x7Cb-fpPyDuYIMuvgCx6FDf5JV6sePOXpf90/s960/phillie+bull+ahead.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="693" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikhTHy8BGsHGN08bkGCyD2r8Jtce1OcI4_suBuiKpvk4bBnIKGdE-SfP5U92xZE28Gv9ySLmyLRRz6kB-LwPloHieUXkqAUxZCDs0JC61x7Cb-fpPyDuYIMuvgCx6FDf5JV6sePOXpf90/w462-h640/phillie+bull+ahead.jpg" width="462" /></a></span></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">―Luzinski's designated late-inning replacement (more on this presently)</span><span style="font-family: times;">―6 homers and a .260 average in 215 at bats. The team seemed impregnable, at least as far as the National League was concerned, even when opposed by a team as formidable as the Dodgers.</span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">After splitting the first two games of the NLCS in LA, the Phils came home to the Vet with confidence, knowing that if they won on Friday the 7th, they had </span><span style="font-family: times;">Steve "</span><span style="font-family: times;">Lefty" Carlton ready to take the mound on Saturday night. Taking the mound for the Phils was 19-game winner Larry Christenson. Facing him was Burt Hooten, ironically nicknamed "Happy" by manager Tommy Lasorda, who had won 12 games with a fine 2.62 ERA during the season, and who had a fine fastball to go along with his signature knuckle curve. Nothing happened until the top of the 2nd inning when, after Steve Garvey looped a single to center, Dusty Baker ripped a double to the wall in left center. After the "Secretary of Defense" Garry Maddox uncharacteristically juggled the ball while picking it up, Garvey lumbered home and was met by Larry Bowa's pinpoint relay throw, which Bob Boone, who had blocked the plate perfectly, caught and then applied the tag as Garvey pinwheeled away from the plate. Home plate umpire Harry Wendelstedt, who had somehow not positioned himself adequately, nevertheless called Garvey safe, not realizing he had never touched the plate (on the YouTube video, the play may be seen at the 10:12-11:02 mark, and then again at 11:25). After Rick Monday flied out, 8-hole hitter Steve Yeager singled to plate Baker, giving the Dodgers a 2-0 lead going into the bottom of the 2nd.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglHeFdv4PEfAF4VGUD7oVv38TOga42aWRvffggR1jKp6Ip1KjOi372Ff_i79XdbiQRgqTdyPKGeByPcxeORP-BgfdwriQLXenMrz6DwmIJrols6q5hEK9euZqq1iiDJ0dmNjt948euIFs/s350/burt-hooton-card.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="250" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglHeFdv4PEfAF4VGUD7oVv38TOga42aWRvffggR1jKp6Ip1KjOi372Ff_i79XdbiQRgqTdyPKGeByPcxeORP-BgfdwriQLXenMrz6DwmIJrols6q5hEK9euZqq1iiDJ0dmNjt948euIFs/w286-h400/burt-hooton-card.jpg" width="286" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Philadelphia fans are notorious for their hostility, but rarely do they get the credit they deserve in providing home-field advantage for their teams. The bottom of the 2nd inning, October 7, 1977, was one such day. The Phils' best hitter, Greg Luzinski, opened the inning, by singling to the hole between short and third. Burt Hooten, however, had his best stuff, and two batters later, a Richie Hebner forceout and a Maddox strikeout, Bob Boone came to the plate with 2 outs and Hebner on first. Boone kept the inning alive by looping a single to left center. And then things unraveled for the highly strung Hooten. First he walked Ted Sizemore to load the bases. That brought up the pitcher, Christenson, a .135 batter on the season (though, to be fair, he did hit 3 home runs). On two consecutive pitches, Hooten appeared to have struck Christenson out with fastballs over the plate, but Wendelstedt called them balls, Finally, he walked Christenson to plate Hebner and put the Phillies on the board as Hooten and manager Tommy Lasorda became ever more incensed … and the sellout crowd of 63,000+, noticing it and sensing blood, grew louder and louder. Hooten, clearly shaken and taking time to walk around between batters, proceeded to walk the next two batters, McBride and Bowa, in the midst of the deafening din, putting the Phils up, 3-2, before Lasorda came and relieved Hooten (the whole sequence may be seen roughly between the 20 and 30 minute marks of the video). Rick Rhoden then came in and retired Mike Schmidt on the first pitch to end the inning. [For those who want the listen/watch, the hot mic during the pitching change, when Phils' announcers Harry Kalas and Rich Ashburn go off on Harry Wendelstedt for his incompetence in both halves of the inning</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">―Kalas: "the game should be nothing to nothing"</span><span style="font-family: times;">―is classic.]</span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">The Dodgers tied the game in the 4th on an RBI single by Dusty Baker, after which nothing of consequence happened until the 8th. Phils' manager Danny Ozark had inserted reliever Gene Garber in the 7th, and Garber rewarded him by inducing 6 consecutive weak grounders. In the bottom of the 8th, the Phils made their move </span><span style="font-family: times;">…</span><span style="font-family: times;"> with help from the Dodgers. Hebner doubled to lead off the inning, and was singled home by Maddox. But rightfielder Reggie Smith overthrew cutoffman Garvey, and the error allowed Maddox to go all the way to 3rd. The very next batter, Boone, hit a grounder to Ron Cey at 3rd, but he likewise threw wildly to first, allowing Maddox to score an insurance run and Boone to move to 2nd. At the time, with Garber on the mound, no one seemed concerned that Boone was left stranded by three consecutive batters. A two-run lead in the 9th. Gene Garber, with his 2.35 ERA and 19 saves on the mound. No problem! Or so it seemed.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEOI4VYCl9yM5PTxh27nrgqtcdVvPyzcV8lpg4MntyHWQ4DNLsdoNSo9FyCtls3h_uvONpzBStrBHMA5qRYV1GnQsFQenOTDs4-y2nzoCMlzFbfUG8HZ_0YWdTfG2aA6YxNgk11MYDj0c/s300/manny+mota.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="217" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEOI4VYCl9yM5PTxh27nrgqtcdVvPyzcV8lpg4MntyHWQ4DNLsdoNSo9FyCtls3h_uvONpzBStrBHMA5qRYV1GnQsFQenOTDs4-y2nzoCMlzFbfUG8HZ_0YWdTfG2aA6YxNgk11MYDj0c/w289-h400/manny+mota.jpg" width="289" /></a></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Two batters later, it still seemed that way. Garber induced Dusty Baker to hit a weak chopper to Schmidt and Rick Monday to ground weakly to Sizemore. Two outs. No one on. The fans rose (Over the years, I have learned this is usually an omen of bad things to come.) Lasorda, realizing he needed 2 runs to tie, lifted Steve Yeager for pinch-hitter Vic Davalillo, a 40-year old fossil who had hit .301 for the '65 Indians and .318 for the '72 Pirates, but who hadn't played in the major leagues for 3 years prior to being signed by the Dodgers in August. After one wild swing and miss, the crafty Davalillo, noticing how deep Sizemore and Hebner were playing on the basically concrete surface of the Vet, laid down a magnificent drag bunt to keep the Dodgers' hopes alive. Lasorda then sent another fossil, Manny Mota, to the plate to bat for pitcher Lance Rautzhan. Mota, who would go on to break Smoky Burgess's record for most pinch hits lifetime with 150 (he currently ranks 3rd), batted .395 in 1977. Also, in his last at bat of the regular season, he hit a pinch hit home run off the great J. R. Richard, the first home run he had hit since 1972. Now, in his very next plate appearance, Garber quickly got ahead of him, nothing-and-two. But then he dropped a low and inside changeup that Mota crushed on a line to the wall in left. Martin</span>―<i>no, it was still the leaden Luzinski, routinely taken out for Martin for defensive purposes late in games by Ozark!</i>; <i>why, oh why, Danny? </i>With Martin in the game, the Phils would have won then and there―instead of gauging the ball's trajectory and racing to the spot like any competent outfielder, ran a circuitous route toward the ball while watching it, not knowing exactly where the wall was. At the last minute, Luzinski jumped, the ball hit his glove … and bounced out, off the wall, and back into his glove. He fired the ball back into second, where the ball inexplicably got past Sizemore, with Hebner likewise inexplicably not backing Sizemore up. The Keystone Cops routine resulted in the Phils' lead being cut to 6-5, with Mota on 3rd, but still 2 out. No need (yet) to panic.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="2046" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5q9b-K83mS1y8hWIIA3Q0pcPVCEmWmtTBd93WEciJH2x5O0sg9Q1Qrbur6_Zgkr7KupFSpN0Slsjx0AaFTO2a_8A8f2pIxPwLyIcq7NxU4RH6z9p9dM4SIQffn0MMJyZEPZ9kHXjTtXA/w400-h400/DSCN9418.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The author with Larry Bowa, whose two great throws on Black Friday were<br />neutralized by bad calls by umpires Harry Wendelstedt and Bruce Froemming</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5q9b-K83mS1y8hWIIA3Q0pcPVCEmWmtTBd93WEciJH2x5O0sg9Q1Qrbur6_Zgkr7KupFSpN0Slsjx0AaFTO2a_8A8f2pIxPwLyIcq7NxU4RH6z9p9dM4SIQffn0MMJyZEPZ9kHXjTtXA/s2048/DSCN9418.JPG" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></a></span></div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">That brought up Davey Lopes. Garber induced yet another grounder, but this one wasn't like the others. This was a smash, right to Schmidt, who was playing up to guard against the possibility of a bunt by the speedy Lopes. It was hit so hard that he didn't have time to gather himself. Instead, it bounced off his glove to his left, straight to Bowa, who alertly grabbed it out of the air with his bare hand and rifled the ball to Hebner just in time to nail Lopes at first on a bang-bang play (@1:55:35). Except First Base Umpire Bruce Froemming called Lopes safe, allowing Mota to score the tying run. To make matters worse, Garber then unleashed a slider while trying to pick Lopes off, and his error allowed Lopes to move into scoring position. Of course, Bill Russell then singled through the legs of Garber to plate the go-ahead run before Reggie Smith grounded out to end the inning. In the bottom of the 9th, the Phils had Bowa, Schmidt, and Luzinski coming to the plate. But it wouldn't have mattered if it was Mays, Mantle, and Aaron. The Phils were toast. The 63,000 at the Vet knew it. I, watching the game in the lobby at my college, knew it. When, with 2 outs, Greg Luzinski was plunked with a pitch and Ozark sent Martin out to pinch run for him, the entire Philadelphia region, in exasperation, wondered, why now? After Richie Hebner grounded out weakly to Garvey at first to put the team out of its misery, all that needed to be determined was when the end would come. And it would come the very next night, in a game played in a constant downpour at the insistence of Major League Baseball. Watching that game in a friend's living room in Havertown, PA is one of the most depressing memories of my life. So ended the glorious promise of the 1977 Philadelphia Phillies. It would be the Dodgers, not my Phillies, who would meet the Bronx Bombers in the World Series, and ultimately succumb in 6 games, not least under the weight of Reggie Jackson's 3 home run outburst in the deciding game.</span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In my title for this post, I called this "the worst loss in Phillies history." To me, it only has three rivals: The Chico Ruiz game of September 21, 1964, that led to that Cinderella team's shocking end-of-season collapse; October 20, 1993, Game 4 of the World Series, when they blew a 14-9 lead, allowing 6 runs in the 8th inning to lose, 15-14, to the Toronto Blue Jays to fall behind 3 games to 1, ultimately losing the series in game 6 on Joe Carter's 3-run walk-off homer off Mitch Williams; and October 7, 2011, Game 5 of the NLDS, when Chris Carpenter outdueled Roy Halladay, 1-0, and the Phillies' season ended with slugger Ryan Howard on the ground in a heap with a torn Achilles' tendon, his career effectively ruined. Each of these games was devastating in its own way, but the '77 loss has them all beat. The '64 team was good, surely, but lacked the talent of the Cardinals, Giants, and Reds. As devastating as their collapse was, hindsight suggests that their win totals of 85 and 87 in 1965 and 1966 are more commensurate with their actual talent levels than the 92 they won in '64. The same goes for the '93 team. No team I have followed was more fun to watch. But this is a team that finished in last place in 1992. They then finished in 5th place in 1994. Indeed, they are the only Phils' team to have a winning record between 1986 and 2001. So as infuriating as their World Series bullpen meltdowns may have been, they could not have been totally unexpected. The 2011 loss is somewhat more difficult to gauge. On the one hand, this was the team that set the team record for wins in a season with 102. Yet, in hindsight, one can see that this was the last gasp of the team's core that had won the World Series back in 2008. Its major stars―Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins―were all well past their prime. Even their best pitcher, Halladay, who pitched heroically in defeat that day, was, although no one knew it at the time, done as an ace pitcher: 19-6, with 8 complete games, a 2.35 ERA, 220 strikeouts, and 8.8 WAR that year, he would last only two more seasons, winning 15 games with a cumulative 5.15 ERA and -0.3 WAR.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The 1977 fiasco was different. The team's stars were all in their prime―Schmidt 27, Luzinski 26, Maddox 27, Boone 29, Bowa 31, McBride 28. Even their ace, Carlton, though 32, still had 6 prime years and 2 Cy Young Awards remaining in his left arm. Yet the loss clearly took something out of them. In 1978, they led the division for most of the year, but won only 90 games, 1.5 games ahead of the 2nd place Pirates. After the season, once again, they were eliminated by the Dodgers in the NLCS. After acquiring Pete Rose via free agency in 1979, the team slipped to 4th place before finally going over the top in the glorious 1980 season. But I often wonder, if Black Friday never happened and the Phillies had won the pennant</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">―or even beaten the Yankees in the World Series</span><span style="font-family: times;">―would they have ever made the move to purchase Rose? Would the glories of 1980 have ever happened?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Black Friday occurred when I was 20 years old and a senior in college. When I look back at this painful event today through the eyes of memory, I can see clearly how the Chico Ruiz game and Black Friday serve as bookends, as it were, of my youthful Philadelphia sports fandom, events that have shaped my continued, lifelong fandom at a profound level. The lesson I learned as a 7 year old in 1964, to wit, that my Philly teams are always likely to choke and come up small at the worst possible moments, was reinforced on Black Friday in 1977. Futility</span>―or is it phutility?―is the norm. Cheers are always there, as loud and threatening to the opposition as any place in the USA. But there are always plenty of boos held in reserve for what always seems to be the inevitable disappointment. In the years since Black Friday, the Phillies have won the only two World Series championships in the franchise's history (1980, 2008). The Sixers have won an NBA title (1983). And the Eagles have even won their first Super Bowl (2017). But my constitutional pessimism when it comes to my teams remains. Positive thinking seems all too often to be outside of my reach, try as I may to summon such vibes. Hard-bitten cynicism as defense mechanism. The hardest lessons to unlearn, after all, are those learned firsthand by experience. </span></p><p><br /></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-83603331852691810922021-10-01T10:19:00.000-07:002021-10-01T10:19:47.153-07:00Ten Years, No Playoffs: A Post-Mortem on the 2021 Phillies<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Six months ago today, Jean Segura stepped to the plate in the bottom of the 10th inning against the Braves' Nate Jones and chopped a single into left field to score Bryce Harper with the winning run in the season opener at Citizens' Bank Park. They would go on to win the next two games to sweep the defending NL East champs, holding the offensive juggernaut to 3 runs total in the three games. As it turned out, that opening series was, as I expected at the time, fool's gold. Last night, the hated Braves turned the tables. When reliever Will Smith struck out Phils' third baseman Ronald Torreyes on a breaking ball in the dirt to cap off a 1-2-3 9th inning (9 pitches, 9 strikes), he clinched the NL East title for the 4th straight year for the Braves (and the 16th time since 1995), effectively sticking a fork in a franchise that has now missed the playoffs for 10 consecutive years, the longest current streak in the National League.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">None of this comes as a surprise, of course. When the season began, I "boldly" predicted an 81-81 record, the same as they had in 2019, the last 162-game season. I just didn't see any real, objective reason for optimism (not being an optimist by nature didn't help, either). At present, they stand at 81-78, with three games remaining against the lowly Marlins in Miami. Then again, the team has scored 4 earned runs in their last 39 innings, and has gone 11-18 in Miami since 2018, so who knows? As it stands, they need one victory to log the franchise's first winning record since Ryan Howard's ruptured Achilles' tendon ended their memorable 102-win 2011 campaign.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What went wrong, and what is the solution? The first question is easier than the second to answer. I may be judged too critical or negative, too typically "Philadelphian," but the answer is simple: they simply are not that good. Whereas the Braves are a genuinely good team, the Phillies are a portrait of both inconsistency and mediocrity. I have followed the team since the fateful 1964 campaign. I have seen great teams from the glory days of 1976-83 and 2006-11. I have seen overachieving, fun teams to watch, most notably Harry Kalas's favorite '93 ragtag renegades of Dykstra, Kruk, and Daulton. This team was neither fun to watch nor overachieving, let alone great. All season they have flirted with the .500 mark, bouncing around from 1st to 4th place along with (mostly) the Braves and the likewise underachieving and injury-addled Mets. When, at the trade deadline at the end of July, the team lost 4 of 5 games to the lowly Nationals and Pirates, they stood 2 games under .500 and 5 games behind the Mets, I begged the team to sell, seeing no reasonable hope for a divisional title. The very next day they decided to beat the Bucs, 15-4, leading to an 8-game winning streak, which vaulted the team into first place ahead of New York, which got the town's sports media excited about the pennant race. The city's fans, however, were a bit more circumspect ... and skeptical. And rightly so. They proceeded to lose 11 of their next 15 games, to fall 4.5 games behind the resurgent Braves, who had replenished themselves at the trade deadline with veritable thefts of sluggers Jorge Soler and Adam Duvall, who somewhat made up for the team's loss of injured star outfielder Ronald Acuna Jr. What made matters worse, not only did they lose 4 of 5 to good teams like the Dodgers and Rays, they were swept by the lowly Diamondbacks, who had entered the series with a 38-81 record. Such is simply inexcusable. Later, in September, after blanking the Brewers, 12-0, to move within a game of the Braves, they proceeded to lose 6 of 7, including 3 of 4 <i>at home</i> to the Colorado Rockies, a team who, at the time, was 30 games below .500 on the road. Then, after pulling to within a game of the Braves last Saturday on Ranger Suarez's shutout of the Pirates, they promptly fell flat on their faces, getting shut out, 6-0, <i>at home</i>, on Sunday by rookie Max Kranick (who had entered the game with a 7.28 ERA) and assorted other relievers, and then getting swept by the Braves, scoring 6 runs (4 earned) on 13 hits in 3 games. Such is not the portrait of a team worthy of making the playoffs.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Despite the fact that the Phillies have a $177.4 million payroll, the 5th-highest in MLB (roughly what one might expect considering the size of the market), the team really has only two great players, rightfielder Bryce Harper and starting pitcher Zack Wheeler. Indeed, Harper has, almost single-handedly willed the team into the postseason with his play the second half of the season. As it is, his numbers thus far―40 doubles, 34 home runs, 99 runs, .305 average, .607 slugging, a MLB-leading 1.033 OPS, 176 OPS+, 6.3 fWAR―are certainly worthy of all the talk of his possible coronation as the NL MVP. Indeed, until his recent slump, including his 0-11 this week in Atlanta, the award was virtually assured. But, in the final at bat of a 17-8 blowout win over the Cubs on the 16th, a game in which he hit 2 doubles and a homer to go along with two walks, he struck out wildly trying to homer in his final at bat. My son and I looked at each other and said we hoped that wouldn't get him into a funk. Well, counting that at bat, since that time, he has gone 9-42 with 2 doubles and 1 home run, and his average has dropped from .315 to .305. It has been the most inopportune time to go into a funk. But funks happen. Slumps happen. And Bryce's slump, ironically, has demonstrated why he, and not the Braves' Austin Riley, is the NL's MVP. If Riley has a bad game or two, he need not press, After all, he has Freddie Freeman. He has Ozzie Albies. He has Adam Duvall. He has Jorge Soler. He has Darby Swanson. And next year he will have Ronald Acuna. Bryce Harper has J. T. Realmuto, a cleanup hitter with a .444 slugging percentage? Brad Miller? Andrew McCutchen with his .184 BA versus RHP? Didi Gregorius? That's the point. Harper's slump exposed the barrenness of the Phillies' offense for what it is, especially after the loss of slugger Rhys Hoskins to injury the last two months of the season. Wheeler, meanwhile, is one of the top four or five starting pitchers in the NL. 14 wins, a 2.78 ERA, and league leading numbers in innings (213.1) and strikeouts (247) could have been enough to earn him the Cy Young Award were it not for HOF-bound Max Scherzer's performance the last two months for the Dodgers.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What's to be done about it? I don't have any easy answers, or else I would have applied for Dave Dombrowski's job. The Braves appear to be in the same position they were in back in the 1990's, when their big 3, HOF-bound starting rotation of Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz made them, for all practical purposes, impregnable, except for the improbable and medicinally-facilitated 1993 season. Their lineup is formidable―234 home runs, 2nd in the NL; 776 runs, 3rd in the NL―and laced with youth. Second baseman Ozzie Albies is 24; third baseman Austin Riley is 24; most significantly, outfielder Ronald Acuna Jr., who, along with Fernando Tatis, Jr., appears primed to supplant the injury-prone Mike Trout as baseball's premier all-around player, is only 23. Their pitching staff is also loaded, and not only with old-timers like the still-valuable Charlie Morton. Max Fried (14-7, 3.04) is 27; Ian Anderson (8-5, 3.58) is 23; perhaps most significantly, the injured Mike Soroka, who went 13-4 with a 2.68 ERA in 2018, is 24. And to think Alex Anthopoulos made the steals he did at the trade deadline, while the Phils got ... Freddy Galvis, Ian Kennedy, and Kyle Gibson, is nothing if not depressing to a lifelong Phillies fan.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The only untouchables on the Phils roster should be Harper, Wheeler, and Realmuto who, though he had a "down" season offensively, still remains the class among NL backstops. Jean Segura likewise remains a good second hole hitter (.292) with a fine glove and rifle throwing arm. Rhys Hoskins (27 homers in only 389 AB's, .530 slugging pct.) should also stay, especially if the NL adopts the DH rule for next season. His streakiness can be infuriating at times, but his 126 lifetime OPS+ is basically identical to that of the 2005-2008 Pat Burrell, whose contributions to those Phillies teams, especially the 2008 World Series champions, cannot be gainsaid. Andrew McCutchen is a more difficult decision. He is a quality individual, and is a good clubhouse presence. Likewise, he is still, at almost age 35, murder against left-handed pitching (.609 slugging, 174 OPS+). I would not be averse to having him platoon in left field if we could find another, older left-handed bat to fill in against right-handed pitching. Brad Miller's power bat, Ronald Torreyes's glove, and Matt Vierling's bat/glove/speed also could fill in the bench positions well. Wild cards include third baseman Alec Bohm, 2020 NL Rookie of the Year runner up with a .338 batting average, but utter disaster in 2021 both at the plate (.247, 76 OPS+) and in the field (-70 defensive runs saved), and 23 year old minor league shortstop Bryson Scott. Two things are certain, however: Odubel Herrera and (especially) Didi Gregorius have got to go.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">On the pitching side of things, matters are no better. On the one hand, Ranger Suarez was, to say the least, a pleasant surprise, moving from the back of the bullpen to closer to, for all practical purposes, the team's number two starter. In 99 innings, he compiled a minuscule 1.45 ERA, capping everything off with his clutch shutout of the Pirates last Saturday. But after Wheeler and Suarez, what is there? Hopefully, after this disaster of a season, no one will say, "Aaron Nola," any longer. Nola has been considered an ace ever since his great 2018 season (17-6, 2.37, 224 SO). But after this season's implosion, it is safe to say that different scenery may be necessary if he is ever to regain that form. This season, Nola demonstrated an uncanny knack for throwing 2-strike breaking balls over the heart of the plate, resulting in a 9-9 record and 4.63 ERA. The stuff may still be there, but the command, all too often, is not. If they keep him, they need to do so as a back of the rotation guy, not as a presumptive number 2 guy. Perhaps the lack of pressure would do him some good. Kyle Gibson, likewise, is a back of the rotation guy at best. Dombrowki picked him up from Texas at the deadline because he had gone 6-3 with a 2.87 ERA for Texas the first half this season. But his 4-6, 5.09 record with the Phillies more closely adheres to what his mediocre-at-best stats from 2014-20 would suggest is his true value. The bullpen? The less said, the better. So far they have 34 blown saves, tied for the most in MLB history. Archie Bradley, Ian Kennedy, and Hector Neris are all free agents this winter. Does anybody really think any are worthy of big contracts to stay?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Dave Dombrowski has a lot of work to do. The Phillies Minor League System is in shambles, and has, not surprisingly, been reported to have a <a href="https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10013710-report-phillies-have-toxic-culture-in-player-development-minor-leagues">"toxic culture."</a> Thankfully, Dombrowki has cleaned house and, just this week, <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/phillies/phillies-farm-system-don-preston-mattingly-hired-20210929.html">hired Don Mattingly's son, Preston, to be their new Farm Director</a>. To compete, they need <i>at least </i>two big bats, an offensive instigator <i>a la </i>Jimmy Rollins or Shane Victorino, more reliable fielding, two starters, and a reliable closer. This will mean letting go a lot of dead weight and opening up their wallets to free agency, no matter how painful. Remember, this is Philadelphia. Put a good product on the field, and the people will come. For us fans, we need to recognize that this franchise, which has been going strong since 1883, has really only had two golden eras, the aforementioned 1976-83 and 2006-11 (indeed, the city's best and most-beloved team was the long-gone Athletics), both of which were fueled, not by free agency, but by home-grown talent like Mike Schmidt, Greg Luzinski, Larry Bowa, Bob Boone, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, and Ryan Howard. Such will not happen again in the foreseeable future. It will take patience. This is always hard for Philadelphians. Especially for Philadelphians of advanced years.</span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-56295825203928909012021-09-21T05:45:00.002-07:002021-09-21T05:45:49.851-07:00September 21, 1964: The Most Infamous Day in Philadelphia Sports History<div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">[Note: This is an update and revision of my post from 21 September 2012]</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgDxiMZey5E2Av8f52XhRQgYjORABoqk3IongB91DRuDvqhwUBD79H0kucArkcHeI9ONqoPvMZnx4s3-oaL2krhNcsJkfEtCiCXxCWIgIajFon8Uiwr1bO4KmnYqtvTkTkcP1WgS4289U/s1600/chico+ruiz+stealing+home.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="513" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgDxiMZey5E2Av8f52XhRQgYjORABoqk3IongB91DRuDvqhwUBD79H0kucArkcHeI9ONqoPvMZnx4s3-oaL2krhNcsJkfEtCiCXxCWIgIajFon8Uiwr1bO4KmnYqtvTkTkcP1WgS4289U/s640/chico+ruiz+stealing+home.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Chico Ruiz stealing home, Connie Mack Stadium, Philadelphia, 21 September 1964</span></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Fall is my favorite season. Weather-wise, the turn from summer's sweltering heat to autumn's fresh crispness, with its attendant azure-blue skies and the Northeast's brilliant displays of leafy color, is one of the most highly anticipated events of my year. Yet the approach of the autumnal equinox each September 22-24 is marked by an event that, for me, brings back painful memories of childhood disillusionment and has left an indelible mark on my sporting psyche—</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">and not only on mine, but on millions of Philadelphians of my generation: <i>The Phillies blew a seemingly insurmountable 6 1/2 game lead in the National League with only 12 games to go by losing an unthinkable 10 games in a row. </i>The way this streak began was so bizarre, and how the mounting losses seemed so inexorable, certainly (in my mind) justifies the pessimistic fatalism that has made Philadelphia fans infamous in the sporting world.</span></span></p><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In the spring and early summer of 1964 I was 7 years old, a burgeoning sports fan who loved playing wiffle ball in the alley behind my row house apartment on Balwynne Park Road in the then-new Wynnefield Heights section of West Philadelphia, a neighborhood carved out of land once occupied by an amusement park called Woodside Park. 1964 was the first year I followed big league baseball in earnest, reading the box scores religiously as if my life depended on it, collecting the Topps baseball cards my dad bought from the Jack and Jill ice cream truck that made its nightly rounds in the neighborhood, listening to By Saam, Bill Campbell, and the recently-retired Rich Ashburn call Phillies games on WCAU radio, and going for the first time to see the Phillies play in old Connie Mack Stadium at 21st and Lehigh in North Philly. </span></p><div class="MsoNormal"><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1rR9pHVJn78GwnpO8Z2xJzPANCh4TV4GXyvEx7k1dbo7MF5tPMmWTFr0jIKpspyuvbRiuV33YiLAIP7gQe4O3zHhBTiYvzZ7Mugw8_0tyyzgIEejM7-Ei-bMEQuyPMw0wPaEyMYDxyWQ/s1600/johnny+callison+1964+topps.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1rR9pHVJn78GwnpO8Z2xJzPANCh4TV4GXyvEx7k1dbo7MF5tPMmWTFr0jIKpspyuvbRiuV33YiLAIP7gQe4O3zHhBTiYvzZ7Mugw8_0tyyzgIEejM7-Ei-bMEQuyPMw0wPaEyMYDxyWQ/w226-h320/johnny+callison+1964+topps.jpg" width="226" /></a></div><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1IQmS00t1CUVHln7NHPbVwtChjbedFiZnGh-KMX6_cLlOfUiTfjSnNH7li3LSAwLX7GXZLJzQg79qi-OkCEf3_0cVS5YjT6xGYF0PixohiY4i8G5UjrcNvL29oyJ4VwapxSTrde0gX-E/s1600/richie+allen+1964+topps.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1IQmS00t1CUVHln7NHPbVwtChjbedFiZnGh-KMX6_cLlOfUiTfjSnNH7li3LSAwLX7GXZLJzQg79qi-OkCEf3_0cVS5YjT6xGYF0PixohiY4i8G5UjrcNvL29oyJ4VwapxSTrde0gX-E/s320/richie+allen+1964+topps.jpg" width="224" /></a>At the time, I obviously had no clue of the Phillies’ sad-sack history: only two pennants (and zero World Series victories) in their 81-year history, 17 last place finishes in the span of 29 years between 1919-1947, and a record 23-game losing streak only 3 years earlier in 1961. All I knew was that in the months of April, May, and June of 1964 the Phillies ("we") were locked in a two-team battle with the Willie Mays-led San Francisco Giants for supremacy in the National League. On June 15, when my family left for a summer at Deerfoot Lodge in New York’s Adirondack Mountains, the Phils and Giants were deadlocked in first place with identical 34-23 records. The Giants, not surprisingly, were led by pitcher Juan Marichal, who on June 15 had an 8-2 record and a typically low 2.42 ERA, and the incomparable Mays, by consensus the National League’s, if not baseball's, premier player. In 1964 Mays was off to the hottest start of his legendary career; he was hitting .400 as late as May 23, and on June 15 was still hitting .360 with 18 homers (despite not having hit any in the previous 18 games) and 48 RBI in 57 games. The Phils didn’t have the same level of star power as did the Giants (or the Reds, Braves, or Cardinals for that matter). Indeed, 38 year-old manager Gene Mauch utilized a platoon system for 5 of the 8 positions, with only second baseman Tony Taylor, rightfielder Johnny Callison, and 22 year-old rookie third baseman Richie (“call me Dick”) Allen playing every day. Callison, though, the hero for the NL with a walk-off homer off Dick "The Monster" Radatz in the All-Star Game at Shea Stadium on July 7, had his best season in ’64 with 31 homers and 104 RBI, and was, apart from Roberto Clemente, the best defensive rightfielder in the senior circuit. Allen, meanwhile, despite what could charitably be called his "shortcomings" at 3rd base (41 errors), was a sensation, running away with the NL’s Rookie of the Year award by hitting .318 with 29 homers, 38 doubles, and 13 triples, while scoring 125 runs. The “Wampum Walloper” remains the single most powerful (non-steroid using) hitter I have ever seen, and his torrid start in ’64 was a prime reason for the team’s quick start out of the gate. </span></span><p></p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: medium;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"></div><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">During my summer in New York, the Phillies gradually pulled away from the Giants, who were hurt by the loss of Marichal due to back spasms for nearly a month in July and August. When my family returned to Philly at the end of August and the Phils returned from a short, 6-game road trip to Milwaukee and Pittsburgh, we both came back to a city palpably different from the one we had left, one reeling from race riots that decimated Columbia Avenue (now Cecil B. Moore Avenue) in North Philadelphia, just a mile south of Connie Mack Stadium.* </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl3RQNZrIBuiQIjdBOk3i3B8zA9kWeYoKklTsKL7BLqspIaUMu_6cHp91RjIJezxfqDtah8BlW8SWXgDF0ISuB6ytR0hJFiGyYoVCvTCygStgpbK2DcsuqxEyNGIeAilVnenKFqb0vvUU/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl3RQNZrIBuiQIjdBOk3i3B8zA9kWeYoKklTsKL7BLqspIaUMu_6cHp91RjIJezxfqDtah8BlW8SWXgDF0ISuB6ytR0hJFiGyYoVCvTCygStgpbK2DcsuqxEyNGIeAilVnenKFqb0vvUU/w640-h480/image.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Columbia Avenue in the Aftermath of the Riots, 28-30 August 1964 (AP Photo)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNWWHTppmqDULGdQfAGFfPkQDQ-XAUX0YUdXQ6Cqz35YnjuIHMb4D8XbEXCfcUPfy6tHDTVWZBBRgbD2-LnByaPbJGr2LJB_Av_DEyTWqz46g3ZNKrViSQFXx_lwB_SFSNg08oYG9GEjo/s1600/phillie+1964+ws+tickets.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNWWHTppmqDULGdQfAGFfPkQDQ-XAUX0YUdXQ6Cqz35YnjuIHMb4D8XbEXCfcUPfy6tHDTVWZBBRgbD2-LnByaPbJGr2LJB_Av_DEyTWqz46g3ZNKrViSQFXx_lwB_SFSNg08oYG9GEjo/s320/phillie+1964+ws+tickets.jpg" width="273" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-small;">Phillies 1964 World Series Tickets(photo @<br /><a href="http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/tag/1964-world-series/">http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/</a><br /><a href="http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/tag/1964-world-series/">tag/1964-world-series/</a> )</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLt7N8BPgDSnVLbVCegNU6DtYrmPO0JtsRXNy7OluGggbr2A89q9_5J8bJQJ99dYqRkIHWIxt_VDOGD_l3O9CCUg9BTS7jbjA4fFjm6p6x51k_fvYgCcgiqpiYk1Z9QfHFTh-9K00o9ZI/s1600/jim+bunning+1964+topps.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLt7N8BPgDSnVLbVCegNU6DtYrmPO0JtsRXNy7OluGggbr2A89q9_5J8bJQJ99dYqRkIHWIxt_VDOGD_l3O9CCUg9BTS7jbjA4fFjm6p6x51k_fvYgCcgiqpiYk1Z9QfHFTh-9K00o9ZI/s320/jim+bunning+1964+topps.jpg" width="225" /></a></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">When the Phillies left for their brief trip on August 23, they led the Reds and Giants by 7½ games, having demolished the Pirates, 9-3, at Connie Mack behind Allen's 2 homers and ace Jim Bunning's 14th win of the season. But they proceeded to lose 4 of the 6 games on the trip, 2 of 3 to both the Braves and the Bucs. On the last game of the trip, the Pirates, behind a complete game from big Bob Veale and Bob Bailey's 3 hits and 3 RBI, chased ace Chris Short after an inning and a third, winning 10-2. Short, who had allowed only 1 earned run in his three previous starts, all complete game victories, saw his microscopic ERA rise from 1.69 to 1.90. But the Phillies were still in first place with a seemingly secure 5½ game lead over the Cincinnati Reds, 6½ over the Giants, and 7 over the surging St. Louis Cardinals, who had rejuvenated themselves by trading for speedy outfielder Lou Brock on June 15. When, on September 20, Bunning defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers at Chavez Ravine, 3-2, to run his record to 18-5 and lower his ERA to 2.33, the Phillies came home to North Philly with the aforementioned 6½ games lead (over the Reds and Cards; 7 over the Giants) with just 12 games left on the schedule. Printing presses in Philadelphia proceeded to print World Series tickets for what appeared at the time to be inevitable, and 90,000 were sold within hours. But, alas, it was not to be.</span><p></p></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span></span></b></span></p><div class="separator"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b></b></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSbIsoaylRTh9qkp3-3841RnOyFvK1l6R5YzRF6xm1RJvkuRu9oQ_aYejPbjFEcNeCGgzH5wdl5RraUEcB-bjAlT7ej08rYPL9qGqGmjPAKkL71S9CHEwDzbRcy_nQV54GuEd32zTHvuE/s1600/art+mahaffey+1964+topps.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSbIsoaylRTh9qkp3-3841RnOyFvK1l6R5YzRF6xm1RJvkuRu9oQ_aYejPbjFEcNeCGgzH5wdl5RraUEcB-bjAlT7ej08rYPL9qGqGmjPAKkL71S9CHEwDzbRcy_nQV54GuEd32zTHvuE/s320/art+mahaffey+1964+topps.jpg" width="225" /></a></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span>September 21, 1964 is the most infamous day in the infamous history of Philadelphia sports</span></b><span>. The Phils were at home against the second place Reds, with 12 game winner Art Mahaffey facing John Tsitouris, who had been a major disappointment with a 7-11 record. The game remained scoreless until the 6th inning when, with one out, rookie Chico “Bench Me or Trade Me” Ruiz (for more on Ruiz’s tragically short life, see <a href="https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/10605/another-look-remembering-chico-ruiz/">here</a>) singled and sped to third on a single to right by Vada Pinson, who was gunned down at second by the rifle-armed Callison when he tried to stretch it into a double. That brought up Frank Robinson, one of the league’s most feared sluggers, with 2 outs. Then Ruiz did the unthinkable—“the dumbest play I’ve ever seen,” according to teammate Pete Rose: <i>he attempted a naked steal of home with the right-handed Robinson (!) at the plate, risking decapitation and the wrath of the irascible slugger at the same time<span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY71btqePRIjySz1fcNi1PKoRTnAcgSyAkum7E8HT717MIwaYXvd2Ox8YZgpY9w0n6AxtbXRxTTAcixGX3l6oHjtiVsx9kgNzS_3GXVu0kvPXaw7-ISirk1njmZfiA6rd_pX2V_MfJw34/s1600/chico+ruiz+1964+topps.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY71btqePRIjySz1fcNi1PKoRTnAcgSyAkum7E8HT717MIwaYXvd2Ox8YZgpY9w0n6AxtbXRxTTAcixGX3l6oHjtiVsx9kgNzS_3GXVu0kvPXaw7-ISirk1njmZfiA6rd_pX2V_MfJw34/s320/chico+ruiz+1964+topps.JPG" width="225" /></a></span></i>. But somehow ―Philadelphians might say "typically"―it worked.** Mahaffey, noting Ruiz’s break for home, was distracted enough to uncork a wild pitch outside the reach of catcher Clay Dalrymple, enabling Ruiz to score the game’s only run. The Phillies anemically managed only 2 hits the last 4 innings of the game off Tsitouris, both doubles off the bat of Wes Covington. </span></span><p></p><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1saBr4h8I42QzyP6D2oB47Dr0tCNspuVbsZ9k2IsNB37KtUD6pt1gmg1X3Jy1ASfj1QvNtxlR2lwJtVIByHydm_OJOX2fhTqRwKat0AnF92dZjTXTP0BejYDpeL6vrd2Ak45eqeEADwo/s1600/gene+mauch+1964+topps.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1saBr4h8I42QzyP6D2oB47Dr0tCNspuVbsZ9k2IsNB37KtUD6pt1gmg1X3Jy1ASfj1QvNtxlR2lwJtVIByHydm_OJOX2fhTqRwKat0AnF92dZjTXTP0BejYDpeL6vrd2Ak45eqeEADwo/s320/gene+mauch+1964+topps.jpg" width="227" /></a><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">At first both the team and the fans took the loss in stride. After all, they still had a 5½ game lead over the Reds. But closer inspection would have shown the cracks already showing. Three days previously, Short had blown a 3-0 lead in the 7th inning against the weak-hitting, defending champion Dodgers, allowing 3 straight hits, culminating in a game-tying home run by Frank Howard, before a throwing error by Ruben Amaro led to the Dodgers scoring the winning run in the 9th off reliever Jack Baldschun. The very next night, in an eerie preview of events on the 21st, Willie Davis won the game for the Dodgers in the bottom of the 16th inning with a naked steal of home off reliever Morrie Steevens. With 2 out, Davis had singled for his fourth hit of the game. He then proceeded to steal second and go to third on a wild pitch by the iron man Baldschun, who was then relieved by Steevens, off whom the speedy Davis swept home. Bunning's win on the 20th seemed to steady the ship briefly, but the listing began again with Ruiz's daredevil dash on the 21st. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNaT92eQ5KkTxJ6EffaW7J5_gswzokaCHtHw3sHS3ugDBXOD9twhhbwVFRu-ysrpMw93Q0QsdyeozgR8ECRplOGoO8w8E9ikfsNxpjA1Ww5i55U6uL2mW2coE94gUPWMUQNtDSWLlWv18/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1378" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNaT92eQ5KkTxJ6EffaW7J5_gswzokaCHtHw3sHS3ugDBXOD9twhhbwVFRu-ysrpMw93Q0QsdyeozgR8ECRplOGoO8w8E9ikfsNxpjA1Ww5i55U6uL2mW2coE94gUPWMUQNtDSWLlWv18/w232-h320/image.png" width="232" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The next day Frank Robinson homered and Jim O'Toole went the distance for his 16th win as Short was roughed up for 6 runs in 4.2 innings, raising his ERA from 1.92 to 2.14 and lowering his record to 17-8, as the Reds walloped the Phils, 9-2. As the losses began to mount, the team tightened and, even worse, manager Gene Mauch, the "Little General," whose facility at small ball and strategic matchups had been instrumental in the team’s overachieving success that year, began to panic. Most famously, Mauch used his best starters, Bunning and Short, multiple times on only 2 (!) days’ rest, with predictably bad results (for detailed analysis of this and other of Mauch’s managerial failings contributing to the team's demise in '64, see <a href="http://sabr.org/research/beyond-bunning-and-short-rest-analysis-managerial-decisions-led-phillies-epic-collapse-1964">here</a>). When, on September 28-30, the Phils were swept by the Cardinals in a 3-game series at Busch Stadium, they had amazingly lost 10 in a row, and fallen into third place, 1</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">½ games</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> behind the Reds and 2½ games behind the streaking Redbirds, who had</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">―</span><span style="font-family: times;">Philadelphia fans would instinctively say, "of course"―</span><span style="font-family: times;">won 8 in a row. Even though they rallied to defeat the Reds in the final two games of the season, they fell one game short at the end when the Cardinals rallied from behind to defeat the lowly Mets on the strength of the bats of Bill White and Tim McCarver and the arm of Bob Gibson, who won his 19th game of the season in relief. Often lost to memory amidst all the recriminations is the fact that in the 30 days of September 1964, the Phils played 31 games, with no days off.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p></p></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">All these years later, I still recall these events, and the anguish they caused, as vividly as if they happened yesterday (actually, I could only wish to recall yesterday’s events so vividly!). In moments of thoughtful reflection, I can see how they influenced my own fandom at a fundamental level. For me, losing and choking are the <i>expected </i>results whenever my Philly teams play. I am never surprised when a Philadelphia team snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, whether it is the 1968 Sixers losing three straight to the aging, and clearly inferior, Celtics, the 1977 Sixers losing four straight to Bill Walton’s Blazers after taking the first two games easily, or the 2000 Flyers losing three straight to the New Jersey Devils after taking a 3-1 series lead. I am never surprised, but always angered, when clearly superior Philly teams fail to win championships, whether that team is the 1980 Eagles or the 2010-2011 Phillies. I am likewise never surprised when Philadelphia players rarely seem to live up to their early promise or hype, whether it be Dick Allen, George McGinnis, Donovan McNabb, Eric Lindros, Ryan Howard, Carson Wentz, or Ben Simmons. Frustration, in my experience, has been the norm, and we Philadelphians of the old school are known to voice that frustration in ways that more “refined” and less star-crossed fans of other cities are less wont to do. But it is this very history of frustration that makes the city’s rare championships—the 1960 and 2017 Eagles, the 1980 and 2008 Phillies, the 1967 and 1983 Sixers, and the 1974 and 1975 Flyers—all the sweeter because of their very unexpectedness and rarity.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="font-family: times;">Time heals all wounds, so the saying goes. In a sense, I guess that’s true. Today I look back at the 1964 Phillies, with names like Covington, Gonzalez, Taylor, Rojas, Wine, Baldschun, Dalrymple, Bennett, and especially </span></span><span style="font-family: times;">Allen, </span><span style="font-family: times;">Callison, Bunning, and Short―the last four, the undisputed stars of the team, all now, sadly, with us no longer―with more fondness than I do the more successful Phillies of 2007-2011. To me, they remain bigger than life, despite their failure and my now advanced age. But that failure taught me a dubious “lesson” I wish I could unlearn, but deep down inside know I never will.</span></span></p><p><span><span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span><span style="font-family: times;">*Cf. William C. Kashatus, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/September-Swoon-Phillies-Integration-Keystone/dp/0271023333/ref=sr_1_5?crid=2CUOKQJX1MO0J&dchild=1&keywords=1964+philadelphia+phillies&qid=1632087702&s=books&sprefix=1964%2Cstripbooks%2C172&sr=1-5">September Swoon: Richie Allen, the '64 Phillies, and Racial Integration</a></i> (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004) 121-46; Bruce Kuklick, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Season-Bruce-Kuklick/dp/069102104X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=bruce+kuklick&qid=1632087387&s=books&sr=1-2&asin=069102104X&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1">To Every Thing a Season: Shibe Park and Urban Philadelphia 1909-1976</a></i> (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991) esp. 145-63.</span></span><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;">**Conventional wisdom has agreed with Rose and Mauch that Ruiz's "mad dash" home was exactly that, i.e., mad. But not all have agreed, most notably Davy Lopes. For a sabermetric analysis arguing that it wasn't as bad a percentage play as often assumed, cf. Rory Costello's <a href="https://sabr.org/journal/article/1964-phillies-in-defense-of-chico-ruizs-mad-dash/">"In Defense of Chico Ruiz's 'Mad Dash'."</a><br /></span><p></p><p></p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-83835401263964580942021-09-17T15:13:00.000-07:002021-09-17T15:13:04.179-07:00Once Again, Evangelicals and the Coronavirus Vaccines: God's "Fools," or Just Fools?<p> </p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Six months ago, on the eve of receiving my second Moderna jab, I <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/03/evangelicals-and-coronavirus-vaccines.html">wrote</a> a post, in shock and, if I am honest, in anger as much as in horror, detailing the hesitation of large numbers of self-described white "evangelicals"―54%, compared to 68% of religiously unaffiliated Americans―to "definitely or probably" get vaccinated against the COVID virus. Speaking to my fellow Christians, I concluded my post thus:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>This is what it means to be a Christian. To be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth <i>necessarily entails</i> a commitment to fulfilling "the righteous requirement of the Law," summed up by Jesus, in classic rabbinic fashion, in terms of the Shema and the love command. It is a Christian's duty, as a Christian, to be neighbors to everyone who comes across his or her path―cf. the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 10:25-37</span><span>―</span><i>including one's enemies</i><span> </span><span>(Matthew 5:43-48). And in the present circumstances, this means to wear a mask. It means to commit to social distancing. And it means to take the vaccine as soon as one can get it. Just do it.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What I wrote then remains true today. And with the impressive vaccine rollout under the Biden Administration this past spring, it appeared matters were looking up, and that we were finally starting to get the pandemic under control. But then along came the mutation known today as the Delta variant, thought originally to have arisen in December 2020 in India. This variant, it now seems, is both more virulent and highly transmissible than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and is the cause of the current third wave of the pandemic that has wreaked havoc on the country, particularly on the swath of the Sunbelt from Texas to Florida and now in the interior of the South and Appalachia from Tennessee to West Virginia. As a result, last week President Biden issued an executive order, detailing a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/">COVID-19 mandate</a> covering upwards of 100 million Americans in an effort to right the ship and get the country's ship of health back on track.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What happened? Politically-generated COVID resurgence, that's what. In an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514">NBC poll</a> last month, 91% of Biden voters claim to have been vaccinated, compared to only 50% of Trump voters. As a result, the early lead the US had in vaccinations has evaporated, to the point that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/11/world/asia/us-vaccination-rate-low.html">it now lags behind every other G7 nation in vaccination rates</a>: Canada at close to 75%, France, Italy, and Britain between 70 and 73%, and Germany and Japan at around 65%. The US? 63%. And the needle is hardly moving. The results of this lag are as unsurprising as they are infuriating, as this graph from Johns Hopkins University shows:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEholbC-JiyDUiwB1fVuEjjZwTpNnWzXgKqOmB4Bhg-y_dwyBaq5k8Kv6dSKWOdUzGvRew6uGt9WrvWhn2ehCUtOGbPTVtlw2f-EBlLc1cpYeqCMddBay0oB12DCLUF0BWzE8a9V70oXIMM/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="952" data-original-width="1606" height="380" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEholbC-JiyDUiwB1fVuEjjZwTpNnWzXgKqOmB4Bhg-y_dwyBaq5k8Kv6dSKWOdUzGvRew6uGt9WrvWhn2ehCUtOGbPTVtlw2f-EBlLc1cpYeqCMddBay0oB12DCLUF0BWzE8a9V70oXIMM/w640-h380/image.png" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><span style="font-family: times;">But, and this likewise is unsurprising, the American problem is not a uniform, across-the-board problem. Indeed, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/opinion/covid-relief-economy.html">Paul Krugman</a>, citing the same Johns Hopkins statistics, shows that so-called "blue" states like New York, Massachusetts, and even California resemble Canada and Germany more than they do "red state" COVID hotspots like Texas and Florida, hamstrung as the latter are by MAGA, GOP governors like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis who have done everything in their power to frame the issue in terms of "freedom" by <i>restricting </i>the freedom of municipalities and companies to institute mask mandates or vaccine passports.</span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJM67Pr96nMsPDhCPpy71WFR0t7RsVXppvsfQzkj1Jvctq2gajaW1nQyXZ0ULc1mY_S8W2cCtTc5HNtiBAJ0GgGVmJOs7NaZuWyRq3mYfjQJSAxefJSm6oRH0b7biN7B2AFfwqqP5acsw/"><img alt="" data-original-height="652" data-original-width="1144" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJM67Pr96nMsPDhCPpy71WFR0t7RsVXppvsfQzkj1Jvctq2gajaW1nQyXZ0ULc1mY_S8W2cCtTc5HNtiBAJ0GgGVmJOs7NaZuWyRq3mYfjQJSAxefJSm6oRH0b7biN7B2AFfwqqP5acsw/w640-h365/image.png" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In view of such statistics, one could have hoped evangelical Christians would have reversed their earlier skepticism about the vaccines and realized their God-given responsibility <i>vis-à-vis </i>the welfare of their neighbors (not to mention their own self-interest). Alas, however, large numbers of them―<a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-some-white-evangelical-republicans-are-so-opposed-to-the-covid-19-vaccine/">higher percentages than even white Republicans who did not identify as evangelicals</a>―continue to be either hesitant to get the vaccine or adamant in their refusal to do so. Indeed, earlier this summer studies showed a <a href="https://religionnews.com/2021/07/15/in-covid-hot-spots-a-pattern-high-concentrations-of-white-evangelicals/">distinct correlation between COVID hot spots and high concentrations of white evangelicals</a>. This nasty fact has been the source of much grief and frustration for many thinking Christians, not least <a href="https://religionnews.com/2021/09/10/francis-collins-a-bit-frustrated-with-evangelicals-amid-covid-19-vaccine-push/">Francis Collins</a>, director of the National Institutes of Health.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yet the reaction of evangelicals, by and large, to President Biden's COVID mandate, has been as predictable as it has been disappointing. Even though a <a href="https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article254212288.html">poll</a> this week showed that upwards of 58% of Americans supported Biden's vaccine mandate, large numbers of evangelicals demur. They don't have a degree in science, let alone a relevant Ph.D., yet they take the word of (the vaccinated and admitted fibmeister) Tucker Carlson over Dr. Anthony Fauci and the overwhelming scientific consensus, and decide to do their own online "research" (for which they have no training or competence) to validate their own preconceived beliefs or wishes. Alternatively, as some on my Facebook feed have done, they take the puerile "libertarian" option and cast the issue in terms of "freedom," proudly proclaiming #iwillnotcomply and accusing those who want to act so as to control the pandemic (!) of "politicizing" the virus in order to "strip Americans of their rights" in the interest of seizing power and control over them .</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">When I read or hear such things, I have to sit back and breathe deeply before I let the metaphorical "gathering gloom" envelop me. After all, what is this if not a manifestation of the tribalism to which all of humanity is, unfortunately, prone? And evangelicals have, over the past 50 years, devolved to the point where they have largely become simply the religious arm of the right wing of the Republican Party. This is, then, not simply a <i>theological </i>problem, involving a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of what Christianity entails; it is also a <i>missional</i> problem: the world sees evangelicals and what they stand for clearly, and they just as clearly don't like what they see. The issue, consequently, is this: <i>Is this rejection a matter of rejecting them because of their witness for Christ, or is the rejection based in more fundamental issues, namely, demonstrable ethical and/or intellectual failures of the evangelicals themselves?</i> To use the language of one of the evangelicals' primary texts for their self-understanding, <i>Is their pronounced vaccine hesitancy/rejection a manifestation of what Paul the Apostle called God's counterintuitive "wisdom?" Or is it simply run of the mill "foolishness" that the "world in its wisdom" rightly rejects? </i>The text in question is <b>1 Corinthians 1:18-31</b>, which reads as follows:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="text 1Cor-1-18" style="background-color: white;">For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.</span><span class="text 1Cor-1-19" id="en-NRSV-28367" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="display: inline; font-weight: 700; line-height: normal; position: relative; top: auto; vertical-align: text-top;"> </span>For it is written,</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,</span> <span class="text 1Cor-1-19" style="position: relative;">and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”</span></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="text 1Cor-1-20" id="en-NRSV-28368" style="background-color: white;">Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? </span><span class="text 1Cor-1-21" id="en-NRSV-28369" style="background-color: white;">For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. </span><span class="text 1Cor-1-22" id="en-NRSV-28370" style="background-color: white;">For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom,</span><span class="text 1Cor-1-23" id="en-NRSV-28371" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="display: inline; font-weight: 700; line-height: normal; position: relative; top: auto; vertical-align: text-top;"> </span>but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,</span><span class="text 1Cor-1-24" id="en-NRSV-28372" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="display: inline; font-weight: 700; line-height: normal; position: relative; top: auto; vertical-align: text-top;"> </span>but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.</span><span class="text 1Cor-1-25" id="en-NRSV-28373" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="display: inline; font-weight: 700; line-height: normal; position: relative; top: auto; vertical-align: text-top;"> </span>For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.</span></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span class="text 1Cor-1-26" id="en-NRSV-28374" style="background-color: white;">Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. </span><span class="text 1Cor-1-27" id="en-NRSV-28375" style="background-color: white;">But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; </span><span class="text 1Cor-1-28" id="en-NRSV-28376" style="background-color: white;">God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, </span><span class="text 1Cor-1-29" id="en-NRSV-28377" style="background-color: white;">so that no one might boast in the presence of God. </span></span><span class="text 1Cor-1-30" id="en-NRSV-28378" style="background-color: white;">He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, </span><span class="text 1Cor-1-31" id="en-NRSV-28379" style="background-color: white;">in order that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” </span><span style="background-color: white;">(1 Corinthians 1:18-31, NRSV)</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What this remarkable passage affirms is that the cross is, not merely an apocalyptic event effecting a definitive change in world orders [1], but an epistemologically revolutionary and transformational one as well: <i>the cross serves as the definitive criterion for that in which true wisdom consists</i>. The Corinthians, as is being increasingly recognized, [2] were in thrall to the sort of popular sophistry and rhetoric indigenous to Corinth, and which led to the boastfulness and competitiveness for which the church has become notorious. In view of the Corinthians' fascination with such sophistry, Paul takes pains in verse 17 to point out that Christ commissioned him, not to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel [3]―and that he did so without the sophistry of the "clever rhetoric" (ἐ<span>ν</span>
<span>σοφίᾳ</span> <span>λόγου) [4] his readers so admired, designed as it was to confer status on the speaker, lest by doing so the cross of Christ would be "emptied" (</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">κένωθῇ) of its saving, transformative, and paradigmatic power.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The aim of the Apostle in these verses is to subvert the Corinthians' conceptions of what genuinely counted as "wisdom." In doing so, he sets up an apocalyptic contrast between two groups of people confronted with the "proclamation" (λόγος) of the cross: to those who are "on the road to destruction" (τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις), this proclamation smacks of sheer madness or folly (<span>μ</span><span>ωρία); to "us" (</span>ἡμ<span>ῖν)</span><span> who are in the process of being saved (</span>τοῖς <span>σῳζ</span>ομένοις), however, this proclamation is the word of God's <i>power </i>(<span>δ</span><span>ύναμις)</span>, in that the cross serves both as the means of God's rescuing intervention and the <i>modus operandi</i> of how his power is worked out in the lives of his people.[5] </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Paul calls for what Richard Hays has deemed a "conversion of the imagination," placing the term "wisdom" in the scriptural/prophetic context of Isaiah 29:14 (1 Cor 1:19), asking his readers to see, in the crucifixion of Jesus, an indictment of the human sophistry prized by the Corinthians. [6] To Jews looking for signs that their promises were about to be fulfilled, Paul's message of a "crucified Messiah" (κηρύσσ<span>ομεν</span>
<span>χρίστον </span>ἐσταυρωμένον) was an offensive, oxymoronic stumbling block (<span>σκ</span><span>άνδαλον). To Greeks such as his Corinthian readers, such a message was inanity (</span><span>μ</span><span>ωρία), the opposite of the type of life that would lead to the success and honor to which the "wise" would strive (1 Cor 1:23). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>It is imperative to realize that, as an apocalyptic contrast, the shift in perspective needed is not one that a person can undertake on his or her own; one, whether one is a Jew or Greek, must be effectively "called" (</span><span>κ</span><span>λητοῖς) by God, as a result of which one recognizes, by experience, the Messiah as both God's power and wisdom (1 Cor 1:24). If indeed the cross is the definitive criterion of genuine wisdom, then, as the Apostle will go on to say a couple chapters down the line, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor 3:19).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This is one of Paul's great texts, of course, and it <i>should </i>explain the reaction of people to the proclamation of the Christian gospel of the cross. All too often, however, it is illegitimately utilized to explain (and sometimes glory in) the world's hostility to evangelical Christian beliefs and actions. I used to remind my college students, "Yes, the Bible says that all who live godly lives in Christ will be persecuted; but all too often we are reviled, not because of Christ or the message of the cross, but because we are acting like idiots." <i>In other words, we as Christians must make sure that opposition to us is due to our faithfulness, both to the message of the cross and to the cruciform pattern of our lives. </i>After all, that is the counterintuitive divine "wisdom" of the cross.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">And it is precisely here that the current evangelical hostility to the COVID vaccines in the name of personal "freedom" shows they have (once again) gone off the rails. Yes, the New Testament presents a narrative of liberation. But it is the narrative of the liberation of the Second Exodus/New Creation anticipated in Isaiah 40-66, not the bastard. modernist narrative of human individualism and autonomy so beloved in today's America, not least among self-identifying Christians. Freedom frees one for service, not license. It is the cross that serves as the touchstone of God's wisdom. Evangelicals rightly emphasize the atoning significance of the cross. Yet it is the cross as paradigm, the cross as the means by which God has made and makes his power known in the world, that truly demonstrates the counterintuitive and countercultural character of God's wisdom. And it is this cruciform pattern of life, exemplified by Paul and his apostolic colleagues (1 Cor 4:9-13), that exemplifies the "folly" the fissiparous, competitive Corinthians despised, and which today's evangelicals likewise appear unwilling to emulate.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">For further reading:</span></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Duke Divinity School Professor <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/opinion/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandates.html">Curtis Chang</a>, on why he doesn't believe in Religious Exemptions to Mask Mandates</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Messiah University History Professor <a href="https://currentpub.com/2021/09/11/biden-made-the-right-call-on-vaccine-mandates/">John Fea</a>, on why he thinks President Biden made the right call on COVID mandates</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Western Seminary Theology Professor <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/may-web-only/vaccine-skeptics-need-dose-of-creation-theology.html">Todd Billings</a> on how Calvin could help vaccine skeptics learn a bit of creation theology</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The evangelical Presbyterian <a href="https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/its-time-to-stop-rationalizing-christian">David French</a>: "It’s Time to Stop Rationalizing and Enabling Evangelical Vaccine Rejection"</span></li></ul><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">[1] Cf. Verse 20, "Where is the debater of this age?" (ποῦ
συζηζητὴϛ τοῦ
αἰῶνοϛ
τούτου;), which reflects the classic Jewish apocalyptic two-age schema (this age/the age to come), which the early church―not least under the influence of the erstwhile rabbinic scholar Paul―modified in light of the Christ event to reflect the "already/not yet" dialectic of Christian eschatology.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[2] Cf., <i>inter alia</i>, Stephen M. Pogoloff, <i>Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians</i> (SBLDS 134; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992); Duane Litfin, <i>St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric</i> (SNTSMS 79; Cambridge: CUP, 1994); Bruce W. Winter, <i>Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement</i>, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001) 111-239. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[3] As Anthony Thiselton rightly points out, since Paul elsewhere is at pains to show how the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper actually <i>do </i>"proclaim" the truths of the gospel (cf. Rom 6:3-11; 1 Cor 11:24-27 [!]), "to baptize" here must mean "to perform baptisms" (<i>The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text</i> [NIGTC; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001] 143).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] Thiselton, <i>First Epistle</i>, 143. BDAG (934) renders it "cleverness in speaking." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[5] Cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9-13 for the cruciform lifestyle adopted by the apostles for the benefit of God's people.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[6] Richard B. Hays, "The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians," in <i>The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005) 1-24 (15).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-33585827125756427362021-09-10T10:12:00.007-07:002021-09-10T13:40:27.922-07:00Randall Balmer on Racism as the REAL Catalyst for the Religious Right<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5GSHWuh1eT_rpFVBKXpcyXcapMyldkPpMCMWC9tWGXtJu94bKpocR5nsrmT3w8SnXVd0PTqZn0MFpS6JiJldlCvTAiv_geRpzvqdlnMQvshG_NtAmqw6C5Uv8TgwaSjGYcRvQyRUoayw/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1448" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5GSHWuh1eT_rpFVBKXpcyXcapMyldkPpMCMWC9tWGXtJu94bKpocR5nsrmT3w8SnXVd0PTqZn0MFpS6JiJldlCvTAiv_geRpzvqdlnMQvshG_NtAmqw6C5Uv8TgwaSjGYcRvQyRUoayw/w226-h320/image.png" width="226" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In my last <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/09/mene-mene-tekel-uparsin-jay-green-and.html">post</a>, I looked at evangelicalism in terms of what Jesus would have referred to as the "fruits" it has borne, its sociological manifestations―including sexism, racism, homophobia and, especially, almost universal support of Donald Trump―that have led to what has become known as the "exvangelical" phenomenon sweeping the country. Today I would like to look back more than four decades to what can only be understood as the <i>roots</i> of this problem, the rise of the so-called "Religious Right" in the 1970's. In doing so I am fortunate to have Randall Balmer as a guide. Balmer is the John Phillips Professor of Religion at Dartmouth College and one of our foremost scholars of American religious history. Just last month he published a slender (141 pages), yet powerful, volume on the origins of the Religious Right entitled <i>Bad Faith</i>, [1] one which not only exposes the truth of these origins but elegantly explains what, to me, had always seemed inexplicable, to wit, how people who claimed to follow Jesus could so whole-heartedly follow the ever-more blatantly <i>un-</i>Christian tenets of the Reagan and post-Reagan Republican Party.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One of the convenient myths evangelicals have long put forward to explain the rise of the so-called "Religious Right" in the late 1970's is that it was a principled response to the 1973 <i>Roe v. Wade</i> Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Not so, argues Balmer. [2] Indeed, as he demonstrates convincingly, evangelicals, by and large, understood abortion to be a <i>Catholic</i> issue, and were generally tolerant of the practice and supportive of the Roe decision. Balmer cites, not only successive editors of <i>Christianity Today</i> magazine, the redoubtable Carl F. H. Henry and Harold Lindsell, but First Baptist Dallas's famous fundamentalist Pastor W. A. Criswell and, most shocking of all, Focus on the Family's James Dobson, who, noting the Bible's silence on the matter of abortion, considered it plausible for an evangelical to believe that "a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being." Even Jerry Falwell admitted to not preaching his first anti-abortion sermon until February 26, 1978, five years after the Roe decision was promulgated. Indeed, the first evangelical anti-abortion voice Balmer finds was that of the liberal (!) Republican Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield, in 1973.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>The evidence Balmer adduces fits my lived experience. Like Balmer, I am a son of evangelicalism: he, the son of a 40-year pastor in the Evangelical Free church, I the son of an evangelical Bible professor; in the '70's, he went to college at Trinity College and seminary at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I did my undergraduate work at Philadelphia College of Bible (now Cairn University) and, in 1979, started seminary in Dallas. Abortion, in both our circles, simply was not an issue. W</span><span>hen Harry Blackmun wrote the </span><i>Roe v. Wade </i><span>decision for the 7-2 majority, it</span><span> made the splash of a Chinese platform diver. The issue of "life," so prominent and heated in today's partisan world, was a non-issue. Indeed, in Protestant circles an embryo, even a fetus, was generally considered to be a </span><i>potential life</i><span>, not a full human being in its own right. [3] </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Even more astonishing, at least to those who were not alive at the time, is the realization that "evangelicals" did not constitute a reliable, nation-wide voting bloc. Balmer, as he has done for years, makes much of 19th century evangelicals' activism concerned with those on the margins of society. Though, as he well knows, this is only part of the story, like many he points to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 as a turning point, after which evangelicals, particularly those who preferred to be called "fundamentalists," turned inward, away from the world, developing their own subculture of schools, denominations, camps, mission boards, Bible Institutes, and so forth, which came into their own in the middle decades of the 20th century. Indeed, most evangelicals and fundamentalists of my youthful acquaintance―remember, this was an overwhelmingly white, suburban, middle class demographic―were reliably Republican, if indeed they voted at all. But the Republicans of the 1960's and early 1970's were not the Republicans of the post-Reagan years, let alone the MAGA-hoards of the 2020's. Indeed, what truly characterized the evangelical political attitude of my youth was </span><i>distrust of human government</i><span>, a distrust motivated, at least in part, by the pessimistic dispensationalist theology which was </span><i>de rigueur </i><span>in those circles. The present world was, in the words of St. Paul, "passing away" (1 Cor 7:31). The world was heading, so we were taught, toward an antichristian climax of a "one world government," and so "big government" of any kind was viewed as a harbinger of that bleak forecast. It was the return of Christ (the "rapture") for which we were waiting, not social improvement, let alone the realization of God's kingdom on earth. In any case, any notion that we could change the world for the better was nothing but a pipe dream. Our job in this dualistic worldview, so we were taught, was to evangelize: "witness" by preaching the gospel so that people could be saved </span><i>out of the world</i><span> when Christ returns.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But then, in the late 1970's, everything changed. And it changed seemingly overnight. What happened? Balmer's book provides the definitive answer. And this answer is as important as it is disheartening and ugly: <i>From the beginning, it was always a matter of racism, pure and simple</i>. Balmer tells the remarkable personal story of a gathering he was invited to attend in Washington in November 1990, ostensibly to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency, in which one of the founding pillars of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich, vociferously claimed―against the received wisdom and/or the approved narrative―that abortion had nothing to do with the emergence of the movement. Instead, as Balmer skillfully tells us, the catalyst occurred on January 19, 1976, when the IRS, based on the <i>Green v. Connally</i> decision of June 30, 1971 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia [4], rescinded the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies. This got the attention of one Jerry Falwell, who had founded his own segregation academy. Falwell then got together with Weyrich and other like-minded conservatives to fight the IRS so as to try to preserve their tax-exempt status and <i>to frame the issue as one of the schools' religious freedom</i>, as schools that didn't take any federal money, to discriminate (my word, not theirs) as they pleased. Balmer's narrative, and the sketches he provides of the major players in the story, are in equal parts compelling and troubling. His main point is clear, and the evidence he uses to back it up is beyond dispute: <i>it is a movement generated to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions</i>―and to place the blame for Bob Jones's loss of its status at the hands of the Democratic Carter Administration, even though it had originally been the Republican Nixon Administration that had taken action against the school.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Where, then, does the abortion issue, enter the picture? Here Balmer points to the aforementioned Weyrich, the evil genius, as it were, behind the movement, who had been looking, as far back as the 1964 Barry Goldwater Presidential campaign, for an issue to mobilize evangelical voters, but had come up empty. Realizing that he would need an issue more "respectable" than defense of segregation academies to serve as the requisite "wedge"― he hit upon his winner by happenstance on the eve of four Senate races in 1978, when he directed pro-lifers to leaflet church parking lots on the Sunday before the election; in each of them, the heavy underdog pro-life Republican emerged victorious in a low turnout election. Voila. Weyrich had his issue. [5] And by 1980, the turning point had come. Evangelical voters, now largely united under the umbrella of the "Religious Right," massively supported the divorced-and-remarried, former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan, who, while Governor of California, had signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, over the evangelical Christian Jimmy Carter. And abortion was now becoming the driving force in their political logic. [6]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Responding to Balmer's evidence is no easy thing, especially for a Christian who lived through the events involved. At one level, one is disgusted by the racism, corruption, duplicity, and sheer "sinfulness" of the characters involved, especially considering the self-righteousness and "morality" in which such wickedness was deliberately clothed (so as to be hidden from public view). Then again, I never had any respect for people like Jerry Falwell, let alone Paul Weyrich, to begin with. And </span><span>in my family, headed as it was by a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Bible professor and theologian with spiritual integrity, </span><span>Bob Jones University was always an object of contempt because of its racist beliefs and practices. Then again, I was raised in Philadelphia, seemingly light years away culturally from the rural south where "segregation academies" flourished to benefit white so-called "Christians." This cultural disconnect somewhat explains my disorientation when, as I </span><a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/01/evangelicalism-rip.html">wrote</a><span> earlier this year, I heard a fellow member of my church in Dallas worried about the consequences of televangelist Jim Bakker's fall from grace for "us," i.e., "evangelical" Christians. What I didn't realize then, buried as I was in the midst of my Ph.D. studies, is that my intellectualist/theological (and naively urban and Northeastern) understanding of what "evangelicalism" entailed was </span><i>already</i><span> passé. "Evangelicalism" had </span><i>already</i><span> been largely swallowed up, at least in the public mind, by the Religious Right. The goals of the so-called "New Evangelicals" of the 1940's and 1950's had been entirely left behind. And what was becoming clear at that time has only gotten worse in the in the subsequent decades. Indeed, </span><i>what Balmer demonstrates is that there is a direct line between the founding of the Religious Right and today's Trumpified, xenophobic, anti-CRT "evangelical" Christianity</i><span>. The dots aren't that difficult to connect.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Upon further reflection, however, I can't let the circles in which I was raised off the hook so easily. It's all too easy for a Philadelphian such as I to stand in judgment on southern Christians for their blatant racism. After all, the Christian college I attended had African American students, some of whom were my teammates on the basketball team! But how many African American Professors were there at the college? (Answer: 1, and he was buried in the Social Work Department) What about the subtle racism of low expectations? How many Christians did I hear using the "n word" in casual conversation? How many, ensconced in their tidy, middle class neighborhoods on the Main Line looked down and sat in judgment on less well-to-do black folks living in run-down neighborhoods in West Philly? ("they should pick themselves up by their bootstraps, blah blah, blah" [Pelagianism 101]). And what <i>really</i> was the reason pious white church folk condemned the rock and roll, blues, and jazz music I loved so much (and still do) in my youth? Was it really the "lifestyle" of the performers? It's funny, I never heard them claim the "lifestyle" of Leonard Bernstein or Peter Tchaikovsky disallowed their music from being played. And what was their response when one of their white youth tried dating an African American? Hint: It wasn't pretty. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">And I wish things were completely different today. To be sure, in some cases, they are. But old attitudes die hard, if at all. To give one example, a couple of years ago, we had just returned from a week in Atlantic City and were talking to an old Christian lady. When we told her about our trip, she said, "You should have gone to Ocean City. There's more of our kind of people down there." Of course, she could have been referring to "Christians," because Atlantic City is famously a city of casinos, and Ocean City, a famously dry town that bills itself as "America's Greatest Family Resort," was founded as a Methodist retreat. But somehow I don't think so. I didn't say anything, but what I should have said is that the relentless <i>whiteness</i> of Ocean City is its one drawback; Atlantic City, for all its troubles, <i>looks like America</i>, and I like it for that reason. Indeed, the only reason I can live the somewhat middle class life I now do is due to the White Privilege she, and no doubt most evangelicals in America today, relentlessly resist acknowledging exists. I hate to admit it, but racism is baked into the DNA of American evangelicalism.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">If this is so, is there any hope for evangelicalism? Can they reverse the course they have trod over the past 40+ years? Balmer, always the optimist, tells Camp he sees a flicker of hope in Jesus' resuscitation of Lazarus (John 11) after decay had already started to set in. If God can do that, then maybe he can prod evangelicals to reconsider other aspects of their political agenda and thus see the disconnect between the far-right precincts GOP to which they have given fealty and Jesus' directive, in Matthew 25, to care for "the least of these." He is a realist, however, and in a moment of honesty, says that the 2016 election "really represents the end of evangelicalism, at least in any meaningful sense." If 81% of evangelicals could vote for Donald Trump, and an almost identical percentage do the same four years later, it is past time to give up the charade that they actually care about "life" or "family values." No one any longer is fooled by such nonsense, except perhaps the self-deluded.</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">[1] Randall Balmer, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Faith-Race-Religious-Right/dp/0802879349/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=balmer+thy+kingdom+come&qid=1631214506&s=books&sr=1-2">Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right</a></i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021). Helpful podcasts in which he discusses the book may be found with Lee Camp at <a href="https://www.tokensshow.com/blog/bad-faithrace-and-the-rise-of-the-religious-right-randall-balmer?fbclid=IwAR2vKtXEDwxz8twVjqBSg47-1OsNC2IOmFsxPU-kHWwrROmM6ZwIt_T5O9w">https://www.tokensshow.com/blog/bad-faithrace-and-the-rise-of-the-religious-right-randall-balmer?fbclid=IwAR2vKtXEDwxz8twVjqBSg47-1OsNC2IOmFsxPU-kHWwrROmM6ZwIt_T5O9w</a>; and with Frank Schaeffer at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkkXQAMU89k&ab_channel=FrankSchaeffer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkkXQAMU89k&ab_channel=FrankSchaeffer</a>.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[2] Balmer first made this argument, briefly, in <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Thy-Kingdom-Come-Religious-Threatens-ebook/dp/B0095XH344/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=balmer+thy+kingdom+come&qid=1631214506&s=books&sr=1-1">Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America. An Evangelical's Lament</a></i> (New York: Basic Books, 2006), ch. 1: "Strange Bedfellows: The Abortion Myth, Homosexuality, and the Ruse of Selective Literalism."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[3] Fred Clark brought this home with utmost clarity by citing the 1971 and 1975 editions of my teacher Norm Geisler's <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/06/08/groovy-relic-forbidden-evangelical-past/"><i>Ethics: Alternatives and Issues</i></a>, in which he argues that, because an embryo is an undeveloped human, abortion is not murder, and that, since "an <i>actual life</i> (the mother) is of more intrinsic value than a <i>potential</i> life (the unborn)," abortion is justified in cases of rape and danger to the life and health of the mother. cf. "A groovy relic of the forbidden evangelical past," <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/06/08/groovy-relic-forbidden-evangelical-past/">https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/06/08/groovy-relic-forbidden-evangelical-past/</a>. In later editions of the books, he had changed his stance. Indeed, he had changed his stance by the time I took him for a class in the fall of 1979 at Dallas Seminary. Of course, not all Christian theologians argued thus. Among Protestant theologians, the most important to argue for the full personhood of the fetus was John Calvin. Cf. his <a href="https://heidelblog.net/2019/01/calvin-on-abortion/"><i>Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses</i>, on Exodus 21:22</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/330/1150/2126265/">330 F. Supp. 1150 (1971)</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[5] Though Balmer, interestingly, recounts how Ronald Reagan, speaking to between 10,000-20,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas on August 22, 1980, referred to creationism and tax exemption for Christian schools, but said nothing about abortion.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span>[6] The politics of abortion is an issue I hesitate to wade into for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the inherent emotionalism associated with its tends always to produce more heat than light. The issue must be dealt with at multiple levels: the hermeneutical/exegetical level, dealing with texts in the Hebrew Bible including Exodus 21:22-25 and such poetic passages as Psalm 139:13-18 and Jeremiah 1:5; the theological level, considering the potential or necessary implications of such texts for matters such as the nature and termini of human life; and the level of contextualization, for for the life of the church and how the church should strive to live in the world. The matters are exceedingly complex, more so than partisans of the left or the right are wont to admit. Suffice it to say that, in my view, the strict anti-abortion position (i.e., abortion = murder) is a weight too heavy to be borne by the texts themselves or by necessary deductions from them. Norm Geisler, in other words, was right <i>before </i>he changed his mind: the embryo is a potential human life (which begs the question, <i>why</i> did he change his mind? And why did so-called "evangelical" Bible translations like the NIV and ESV, and most subsequent evangelical commenters on the passage, go against traditional interpretations [and the LXX] and translate Exodus 21:22-25 as if the issue were premature birth rather than miscarriage? Certainly the 1979 work of Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop in excoriating the practice of abortion [<i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Human-Race-Exposing/dp/0800710517/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3CEOMW71P9VD2&dchild=1&keywords=whatever+happened+to+the+human+race+francis+schaeffer&qid=1631252467&sr=8-2">Whatever Happened to the Human Race</a></i>] ultimately was influential, though that wouldn't explain the NIV; as a mere New Testament scholar, I have no clue; it would make a fine topic for a Ph. D. dissertation). As such, however, one should consider the sanctity of this life and not cheapen it by using the language of "choice." Cf. the nuanced discussion of Tremper Longman III, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Ballot-Scripture-Political-Decisions/dp/0802877346/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&keywords=tremper+longman&qid=1631251224&sr=8-8">The Bible and the Ballot: Using Scripture in Political Decisions</a></i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020) 135-54. As far as how this works out politically, I have heard Balmer say freq</span>uently (and I am in total agreement), that abortion should be dealt with as a <i>moral</i> rather than as a <i>legal</i> issue, i.e., that one can be "pro-life" and work toward making abortion unthinkable rather than illegal. Certainly the least fruitful road to take is the one most frequently traveled, to wit, to be stridently "pro-life" <i>vis-à-vis </i>abortion, and yet inconsistently, if not hypocritically, ignoring genuine life concerns in terms of health care, poverty, treatment of immigrants and their children, and war.</span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-11623560185722482002021-09-02T06:51:00.001-07:002021-09-03T07:15:09.054-07:00MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPARSIN: Jay Green and Fred Clark on the #Exvangelical Phenomenon<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Years ago, in response to a query from a former student struggling with his faith, I penned a rather long post entitled <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-i-am-still-christian.html">"Why I Am Still a Christian."</a> In it I recounted the story of one Rachael Slick, the daughter of a Westminster Seminary graduate, who had abandoned the faith in which she was raised. Her story, as everybody is now aware, is not unique. Indeed, a widely distributed recent survey from the Public Religion Research Institute <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/08/rapid-decline-white-evangelical-america/">suggested</a> that White Evangelical Protestants had declined from 23% to 14.5% in the 15 years from 2006-2021. Over the past few decades, prominent intellectuals have either abandoned orthodox expressions of Christian faith (Frank Schaeffer) or left the faith entirely (University of North Carolina biblical scholar Bart Ehrman). More recently, and at the popular level, <i>I Kissed Dating Goodbye</i> author Josh Harris renounced his faith and announced a "deconstruction" course (subsequently <a href="https://churchleaders.com/news/403209-joshua-harris-deconstruction-course.html">pulled</a>). These, of course, are only the tip of the iceberg.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>This iceberg, only now becoming all too visible to the heretofore triumphalist Titanic of American White Evangelicalism, is increasingly being known by the clever moniker of "Exvangelicalism." And it behooves those of us who care about Christianity in its genuine expressions to understand these "exvangelicals" and what they signify in our present cultural and ecclesial climate. One who has attempted to do so is Jay Green, Professor of History at Covenant College, affiliated with the (evangelical) Presbyterian Church in America. Green, to his credit, does more than simply criticize or denounce, taking the time actually to talk to Blake Chastain, one he describes as a "leading spokesman" of the movement (such as it is), who <a href="https://www.exvangelicalpodcast.com/">hosts a podcast of the same name</a>. In an <a href="https://currentpub.com/2021/08/10/current-and-the-exvangelical-dilemma/?fbclid=IwAR0x3gDspolWOZz-qnWLBIx79CHqXcZriHFzfhqx9G9Yvfxx1zLBlu24ARA">article</a> last month at John Fea's <i>Current </i>website, Green, after noting the wide spectrum of beliefs contained under the "exvangelical" umbrella―everything from progressive forms of Christianity to outright atheism</span><span>―</span><span>notes the uniqueness of this "movement." What drives this departure from the faith they "once vocally and joyfully professed" is not primarily theological or historical skepticism </span><i>per se</i><span>, but rather the fatigue of a perceived spiritual oppression―in Chastain's words, "the totalizing mental and social environment" of evangelical Christianity. In Green's words:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One finds limited talk of theology among these Exvangelicals apart from repudiating the “rigidity” and “literalness” of evangelical faith. The paradigm shifts they have undergone seem more sociological than theological; more concerned with cultural claims than metaphysical ones.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yet, Green avers, quoting Chastain and adding a bit of snarky commentary at the end, even the exvangelicals have certain hard and fast commitments of their own:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Even so, Chastain is quick to lay down what he sees as a few non-negotiable commitments all share: “We embrace the LGBTQ community fully, are thoroughly feminist, denounce the role of white supremacy in society in general, and white evangelicalism in particular.” (It seems that giving up on the idea of <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">fundamentals </em>is easier said than done.)</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>The implications, at least as he sees them, are clear. The exvangelicals, in Green's reckoning, have allowed "sociological" factors derived from the prevailing culture to derail them from what Green considers to be the properly theological and "spiritual" factors that legitimately define the faith.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">The very next day (!) Green's article was met with a <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2021/08/11/vertical-blinds/">reply</a> by the "Slacktivist," Fred Clark. Clark commends Green for making the attempt, if not a wholly successful one, to understand these people and for listening to Chastain in particular. Yet he maintains that Green nonetheless misses the boat entirely in that the disjunction he makes between "theological" and "sociological" factors, what Clark niftily dubs </span><span style="font-family: times;">the "vertical/horizontal dichotomy," is illegitimate.</span><span style="font-family: times;"> Using Jesus' famous teaching about the inexorable connection between a tree and the fruit it bears, Clark suggests Green underestimates the <i>real </i>reason for the exvangelicals' rejection of evangelicalism:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It's not wrong to say that many of these younger people are rejecting or reshaping the evangelical religion they were taught because of "cultural claims" rather than purely doctrinal or theological disagreements. But what I think Green misses is that this is exactly the basis for much of <i>their</i> critique of the evangelicalism they're leaving behind. They're pointing out that evangelicalism is, itself, more of a cultural/sociological construct than a theological/spiritual/doctrinal one.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Or, to put it another way, "one finds limited talk among these exvangelicals" of the tree itself and greater emphasis on the fruit it bears. That's the language of the Sermon on the Mount </span><span>― words spoken by Jesus according to Matthew 7: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. … Thus you will know them by their fruits."</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>In those terms, it would seem to be one big difference between Green's perspective and that of the exvangelicals he's struggling to understand. From his point of view, as an observer and sometimes critic of evangelicalism <i>within</i> that world, the focus is on the tree </span><span>― on the theology, doctrine, spirituality, and religiosity of evangelicalism. And from that point of view it's entirely possible and worthwhile to focus on such things in themselves as something separate and distinct from any secondary "sociological" or "cultural" aspects of the people and institutions holding those theological views.</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>From the point of view of those exvangelicals, however, it's not possible or meaningful to consider the "tree" as something abstract and distinct from the fruit it bears. Any evaluation of the tree is dependent on the quality and substance of its fruit.</span> <span>And they know this fruit from personal experience. They were fed that fruit for a long time and they say it made them sick.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><span>Clark's argument here is unusually perceptive.</span> <i>For theology, as theoretical and as "vertical" as it might appear to be in theory, has unavoidable, indeed necessary, social or "horizontal" corollaries</i>. Nowhere is this more clear than in Paul's (probably) earliest letter, Galatians. There the Apostle is at his most strident and hot-tempered, attempting to counter the impact of "agitators" who have made inroads in trying to convince his Gentile converts that, in order to truly become children of Abraham, they must become circumcised. It is in this context that he first articulates his famous "justification by faith, not by works <i>of the law</i>" <i>theologoumenon</i>. Traditional Protestantism (the "Old Perspective on Paul") always interpreted this as a polemic against a supposed "works-righteousness," the vain attempt to "earn" one's "salvation" by putting God in one's debt (</span></span><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span><i>à la</i></span></span><span><span> Romans 4:3) and being able, consequently, to boast in one's achievement (</span></span><i style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">à la</i><span><span><i> </i> Ephesians 2:9). Yet observant interpreters should notice that the "works" in question are works "of the law"―they are <i>Jewish practices prescribed by the Torah. </i>What was at issue was not "works-righteousness" as such, let alone "self-righteousness." What was at issue instead was the Torah as <i>the definitive cultural framework of God's covenant people</i>. [1] Paul's opponents in Galatia didn't deny Christ or the necessity of "faith" in him. Nor did they deny his atoning death or the fact that his role in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant, any more than did (implicitly) Peter or the "men from James" (Galatians 2:12) whose pressure led the "apostle of the circumcision" (Gal 2:7)―and even Paul's erstwhile champion and ministry partner Barnabas</span><span>―</span><span>to draw back, in a bit of play-acting (</span><i>hypokrisei</i><span>; Gal 2:13), from table fellowship with Gentile believers in Antioch (Gal 2:12). What Paul's opponents failed to grasp (and fellow apostles failed to act upon in their shameful withdrawal at Antioch) was the simple matter of <i>what time it was</i>. God's fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the Christ event brought with it an apocalyptic change of aeons; the time of the Torah had now been shown to be merely preparatory (Gal 3:24), now made redundant by the cross and the consequent new creation which rendered circumcision neither here nor there (Gal 6:14-15)―but if insisted upon a <i>de facto rival of Christ and nullification of the cross.</i> Thus in saying justification was by faith in Christ <i>and not</i> by works of the law, Paul was, in effect, driving a theological wedge between things his opponents, on what they considered explicitly biblical, theological grounds, held together. And the "sociological" or "cultural" ramifications of such a wedge were immense. For, in Paul's view, his opponents were forcing Gentile converts to "Judaize," an implicit denial of the gospel truth that "in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28). Critics of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul" have often criticized its proponents for substituting sociology for theology. But such criticism is (often) misplaced. For, whereas they are correct in affirming that "justification" is a soteriological doctrine in that it deals with a person's standing before God, it must be remembered that the Apostle articulated the doctrine in the context of, and in the interest of, arguing for the full inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant people of God. And, as Barclay has said, "these social effects are not just the <i>context </i>of Paul's theology, mere <i>illustrations </i>of soteriological principles, <i>but its goal</i>, since the calling of Jew and Gentile in Christ is the fulfillment of Israel's calling in mercy, and thus at the center of God's purposes in history." [2] As in Paul's day, so in ours: bad theology leads to bad practice. And if this is so, bad practice is indicative of defective theology.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>This leads to Clark's second master stroke, to wit, his pointer to Jesus' words about trees and fruit in the Sermon on the Mount. The general principle of <i>like producing like</i>, to wit, that there is an unerring consistency between internal states and the external acts emanating from those states, is conventional, [3] and no doubt Jesus, as an itinerant teacher, utilized it in many a teaching situation. [4] In the most famous of these, Matthew 7:16-20, it appears the First Evangelist has taken the Q tradition also found in Luke's Sermon on the Plain with reference to human speech (Luke 6:43-45) and adapted it to apply to the deeds of "false prophets" (Matt 7:15). [5] But the principle, as it did in the first century in the context of Jesus' historical ministry [6], has a far wider application to movements as well as to individual actors: </span><i>so as not to be deceived by any movement, look carefully to see where it leads</i><span>. What "fruit" does it bear in the life of its adherents? What fruit does it bear in the culture it purportedly aims to benefit? This is a matter on which I have often reflected over the years, with much consternation as regards the movement in which I was raised. And the "exvangelicals" are forcing my hand.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>As I have often reflected, evangelicalism―even in many of its "better," more theologically responsible manifestations</span><span>―has,</span><span> because of its inherent "conversionist" tendencies, often put most of its emphasis on how one </span><i>becomes</i><span> a Christian and on being part of the "in" group that is "saved" and, hence, will "go to heaven" when they die. What it means to </span><i>be</i><span> a Christian, what </span><i>living </i><span>like a Christian looks like, is given comparatively less emphasis … or at least less sustained thought. All too often, what Paul refers to as life "according to the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16; Romans 8:4) is reduced to a mere bargain basement, individualistic pietism; the rigorous "obedience that comes from faith" (Romans 1:5) is reduced to a selective moralism focused on sexual "purity;" "worldliness," if it is even frowned upon any more, hardly ever is associated, as it should be, with matters like greed, money, and power. The more frequent target is the more nebulous "liberalism." All too often, as I have lamented again and again over the years, it is simply assumed by huge numbers of White American Evangelicals that the way of Christ is the way of conservative Americanism, with all the tacit, arrogant assumptions of American exceptionalism and militarism along for the ride.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Not so the way of Jesus. The way of Jesus is the way of the Kingdom of God. Indeed, t</span><span>he glory of the New Testament gospel message is that, far from simply being a message about how an individual can "get saved" and "go to heaven," it is rather the royal announcement </span><span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">of the arrival, if only in part and in the midst of the present evil age, of this promised kingdom of God through the historical events of Christ's death and resurrection </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">(</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">I have argued this in detail in my posts </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-gospel-part-1.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-gospel-part-2.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-gospel-part-3-evidence-of-1.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-gospel-part-4-contribution-of-1.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-gospel-part-5-romans-11-7.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-6-romans-116-17.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-7-romans-321-26.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-8-romans-321-26.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18px;">, and </span><a href="http://www.jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-is-gospel-part-9-mark-gospel-and.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; line-height: 18px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">). </span><span>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, <i>on earth as it is in heaven</i>" (Matthew 6:10). This is our hope. This is what we are to pray for daily. And, by implication, what we should be <i>manifesting</i> in our lives and communities are the <i>priorities</i> of this kingdom. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">According to the Old Testament prophets, one of the defining features of the promised New Covenant of the eschaton was to be the interiorization of the Torah through the gift of the Spirit (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:27). According to Jesus, reflecting the language of Micah 6:8, what mattered especially were the "weightier" or "more important" (<i>barytera</i>) matters of the law, such as justice (<i>krima</i>), mercy (<i>eleos</i>), and faithfulness (<i>pistis</i>) (Matthew 23:23).</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Jesus' Sermon on the Mount provides a literary précis, as it were, of what the ethics of this kingdom inaugurated by Jesus look like. [7] When Jesus, at the end of the sermon, speaks of "fruit" indicating the nature of a tree, what sorts of things did he have in mind for his hearers to look for? Consider some of the things he speaks about earlier in the sermon: turning the other cheek (5:39), loving one's enemies (5:43-48), giving to the needy in secret (6:1-4), forgiving others (6:14-15), not judging others (7:1-5). He sums up his ethic in the famous "Golden Rule": "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). [8]</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This, to be blunt, is not the "fruit" the exvangelicals, or anybody else for that matter, have tended to see in large swaths of American evangelicalism, and haven't for quite some time. What they have seen is persistent toxic masculinity, [9] unacknowledged and often unrepented-of racism/white supremacy, [10] the well-nigh inexplicable 80+% support of the presidency of Donald Trump, and now the even worse COVID-denialism/anti-vaxxing/anti-masking refusal to love one's neighbors as oneself. [11] And these features of American evangelical culture are, to say the least, toxic to growing numbers of younger Americans, even those raised within the evangelical subculture. <i>Bad fruit, indicative of a bad tree</i>. The logic is as impeccable as the conclusion is inexorable.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">At the same time, Clark's enthusiasm for the exvangelicals' standpoint needs to be tempered somewhat. For, you see, Green is entirely correct in his assertion that the so-called "corrections" they see as necessary to the cultural ethos of evangelicalism are gleaned, not from the Bible or by necessary theological deduction, but from the secular culture in which they live. Now I have often observed, and lamented accordingly, the peculiar phenomenon that so often it is atheists and agnostics who in America today show the type of compassion for the underprivileged, oppressed, and marginalized that ought to be the hallmark of followers of Jesus of the Nazareth, the Son of Man who "had nowhere to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20). And surely there is no necessary reason why their genuine concerns need be played off against the major tenets of Christian orthodoxy codified in the ancient ecumenical creeds, including Trinitarianism, Chalcedonian Christology, and the atoning death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Messiah, just as there is no necessary reason―indeed, no reason at all</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: times;">―</span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">these tenets should work themselves out "sociologically" the way American evangelicals have, by and large, done. [12] Yes, contemporary concerns matter, and the exvangelicals are entirely correct in their criticism of the inadequacies and failures on the part of American white evangelicals. But first and foremost what matters is how one responds to Jesus and the claims he and his earliest followers made about him. All people are responsible for how they respond to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And the so-called "Christians Making Atheists," as the Progressive Christian writer <a href="https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/06/04/the-christians-making-atheists/">John Pavlovitz</a> calls them, have a lot to answer for.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">We are indeed living in a pivotal time for the church. Green, I think, is correct when he writes:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Disappointment, aggravation, and rage against the many foibles and hypocrisies found among Christian believers are not a new phenomenon. They are as old as Christianity itself. And, at least since the Enlightenment, public renunciations of personal faith aren’t especially novel either. But the tenor and contextual specifics driving this recent spate of deconversions give this moment a unique feel. I believe the current wave of evangelical defections signals a kind of inflection point for conservative Christianity in America, where a distinct set of moral, cultural, and political vexations are directly fueling personal decisions to abandon the faith, especially among younger Christians. </span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yet, after lamenting the consequences of "tarnished witness," he goes on to say, </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">But I must continually remind myself that observing the broken practices of deeply flawed believers—my own especially—bears no necessary implications for the val</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">idity of Christianity’s truth claims. In fact, they remind us of our great need for a Savi</span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">or.</span> </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm sorry, but I must demur. Yes, of course, we are all sinners, none more so than I, for whom Luther's famous dictum, <i>simul iustus et peccator</i>, could have been coined. But what the exvangelicals have identified is more than simply the remnants of sin in regenerated-but-still-sinful creatures. What they have pinpointed is systematic failure indicative of a rotten tree, a theology which may have gotten how to <i>become </i>a Christian right, but which has whiffed badly on what it means to <i>live like a Christian</i> in a fallen society. As I wrote painfully back in January, <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/01/evangelicalism-rip.html">evangelicalism is dead</a>. The writing has been on the wall for years. It's days are numbered. It has been weighed and found wanting. But all is not lost. According to the First Evangelist, Jesus promised Peter that he would build his church, and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). And now I speak to myself: let's get moving!</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">[1] Cf. John M. G. Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015) 331-422.</span><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: times;">[2] Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 572 (emphases mine).<br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span>[3] From Jesus' Jewish milieu, cf. Sirach (<i>ca</i>. 2nd century BCE) 27:6: <span>"</span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span>Its fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree; </span></span><span class="text Sir-27-6" style="background-color: white; position: relative;">so a person's speech discloses the cultivation of his mind" (NRSV).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[4] Not only Luke 6:43-45 and Matthew 7:16-20, but also Matthew 12:33.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[5] The verb used five times in verses 17-20 with reference to "bearing" fruit is <i>poieō</i>, indicating the issue is their <i>doing</i> (or not) of God's will.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[6] Cf. N. T. Wright, <i>Jesus and the Victory of God</i> (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 292.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[7] Dale Allison, building on a suggestion of his teacher, W. D. Davies, suggests that the Sermon on the Mount's structure is a deliberate Christian response to Rabbi Simeon the Just's "three pillars" (<i>m. 'Abot </i>1.2), and so a presentation of the most important ethical responsibilities in light of texts such as Hosea 6:6 ("The Configuration of the Sermon on the Mount and Its Meaning," in <i>Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present</i> [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005] 173-215).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[8] The Babylonian Talmud records the great rabbi Hillel as uttering the rule in negative form: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn" (<i>b. Š</i><i>abbat</i> 31a). The contrasting positive and negative forms of Jesus' and Hillel's sayings are not likely significant. Cf. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew</i>, 3 vols. (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97) 1: 687-88. The early Christian writing <i>Didache</i>, heavily dependent on, and written only two or (less likely) three decades after Matthew, likewise repeats the Golden Rule in negative form and combines it with an abbreviated form of Jesus' teaching on the two greatest commandments (Mark 10:29-31 <i>et par</i>.): "First, love the God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself. And whatsoever you do not want to happen to you, you not do to another" (<i>Did</i>. 1:2).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[9] Kristen Kobes Du Mez, <i>Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation </i>(New York: Liveright, 2020).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[10] Randall Balmer, <i>Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[11] John Fea tells the story of neo-fundamentalist pastor John MacArthur's self-righteous and duplicitous experience with COVID and governmental mandates in two posts here: <a href="@https://currentpub.com/2021/08/31/john-macarthur-had-covid-19-in-december-2020-as-the-virus-swept-through-grace-community-church/">@https://currentpub.com/2021/08/31/john-macarthur-had-covid-19-in-december-2020-as-the-virus-swept-through-grace-community-church/</a>; <a href="@https://currentpub.com/2021/08/31/john-macarthur-had-covid-19-in-december-2020-as-the-virus-swept-through-grace-community-church/">@https://currentpub.com/2021/08/31/john-macarthur-had-covid-19-in-december-2020-as-the-virus-swept-through-grace-community-church/</a>.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;">[12] The matter of racism and white supremacy is an obvious place to start, not only with the Genesis creation account and later allusions to it indicating the common origin of humanity, but in Paul's programmatic declaration, already quoted, that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28). On the matter of social justice, cf. <i>The Bible and Social Justice</i>, ed. Cynthia Long Westphall and Bryan R. Dyer (McMaster New Testament Studies; Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2015). On the matter of gender equality, Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) was established in 1988 to counter the patriarchalism of so-called "complementarianism" and promote mutuality rather than hierarchy in gender relationships. For a helpful popular presentation from this perspective, cf. Scot McKnight, <i>The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible</i>, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016). The matter of LGBTQ acceptance is a trickier issue hermeneutically (cf. William J. Webb, <i>Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Social Analysis</i> [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001]), though some (almost all now <i>former</i> evangelicals) have changed their minds and now call for full acceptance, based largely on the precedent of Galatians 3:28. E.g., David Gushee, <i>Changing Our Mind</i>, 3rd ed. (Canton, Michigan: Read the Spirit Books, 2019). This, it seems to me, is still somewhat problematic at an exegetical/hermeneutical level, though the matter calls for much wisdom, humility, and compassion. Cf. Richard B. Hays, <i>The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics</i> (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1996) 379-406; and especially Wesley Hill, <i>Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality</i>, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></p><p><br /></p></div></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-42811118849084775122021-08-24T07:26:00.014-07:002021-08-24T09:25:04.702-07:00The Unimaginable Glory of the Gospel: Romans 4:5 (Part 5)<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> (For previous installments in this series, see <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-unimaginable-glory-of-gospel-romans.html">here</a>, <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-unimaginable-glory-of-gospel-romans_15.html">here</a>, <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-unimaginable-glory-of-gospel-romans_19.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-unimaginable-glory-of-gospel-romans.html">here</a>.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">We come at last, as it were, to Rome (Acts 28:16). As we have seen, Romans 4:4-5 expresses, in succinct fashion, the indescribable and well nigh unimaginable glory of St. Paul's gospel insofar as it relates to the individual's standing before God: <i>God justifies the ungodly as a gift</i>. The expression says it all. This is a gift given without consideration of <i>any</i> human determinants of value. Symbolic capital of every kind, be it moral attainment or ethnic privilege, is thereby excluded. This favor―"grace," in Christian theological parlance―is entirely unconditioned or, in the terms recently made famous by Professor John Barclay, "incongruous." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The fact that, for those of us raised in evangelical or confessionalist Protestant circles, this notion is so <i>un</i>shocking shouldn't blind us to how truly shocking this affirmation would have been to Paul and his Jewish contemporaries in the first century CE. Indeed, as I have been at pains to emphasize, Paul's project in Romans 4 is one of <i>redefinition</i>, not least with regard to the identity of the "righteous." The Hebrew Bible is quite clear on the matter: the "righteous" (LXX <i>dikaios</i>) are contrasted with the "wicked" or "ungodly" (LXX <i>asebēs</i>) precisely in terms of their <i>obedience to the Torah</i> (e.g., Ezekiel 18:5-9). And it is precisely the "ungodly" who will <i>not</i> be acquitted at the bar of God's justice:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><i>Therefore the wicked (</i>asebeis<i>) </i></span><i style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;">will not stand in the judgment,</i></span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: -9pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous (</i>dikaioi<i>);</i></span></span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;">for the</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"> </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Lo</span><span class="offset-marker" data-offset="2180767" id="marker2193516" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt; vertical-align: baseline;">rd</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;">watches over the way of the righteous,</span></span></i></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="lang-en" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 36pt; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -9pt; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>but the way of the wicked will perish. </i>(Psalm 1:5-6, NRSV)</span></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Indeed, as Jimmy Dunn notes, the notion of "acquitting the ungodly" "offended against the whole basis of the covenant" [1] because Israel's entire system of justice encoded in the Torah was posited on God's fundamental declaration, "I will not acquit the guilty" (Exodus 23:7). [2] More than that―and Paul could not have been unaware of this―the LXX of Exodus 23:7 transforms this into an express prohibition:</span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">You shall not justify the ungodly.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">(<i>ou dikaiōseis ton asebē</i>)</span></div><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Here, once again, is Paul's description of God in Romans 4:5: He is the one who "justifies the ungodly" (<i>ton dikaiounta ton asebē</i>). Charles Kingsley Barrett succinctly points to the surface difficulty, one which shocked me into attention when I first read his commentary in my days as a fledgling seminarian: these words "describe God as doing what the Old Testament forbids." [3] Barrett's Durham colleague, C. E. B. Cranfield, may have objected that his was a "misleading over-simplification," and that "the justification of the ungodly to which Paul's words refer differs <i>toto caelo</i> from the sort of thing against which the OT warns human judges is obvious enough." [4] But, I would ask, is it really such an over-simplification, any more than what I would deem to be Paul's own intentionally reversing echo of the Exodus text in his description of God here in Romans 4?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What lies behind this shocking reversal? As I have often argued, the key lies in the course of Israel's history and the progress of biblical salvation-history. In Romans 1-4, Paul is at pains to argue that God had, in this "now" time (Rom 3:21), at long last fulfilled his foundational promises to Abraham―the very promises that would together provide the twin solution to the primeval human problems portrayed in Genesis 11 and, behind that, in Genesis 3―in the Christ event. Paul's imaginary Jewish interlocutors may have boasted in their possession of the Torah and their presumption to be "guides" to the ungodly Gentiles who weren't so blessed to have the Law "by nature" (Rom 2:17-20). [5] But the Apostle reminds them that what matters for acquittal at the bar of God's justice ("justification") is not possession of the Law alone, but performance of it (Romans 2:13), and Jewish <i>non-</i>performance demonstrated they were still in the throes of the exile promised for their dereliction of covenantal responsibilities (Romans 2:24; Deuteronomy 30:1-6). <i>Their own Law showed that they, no less than the Gentiles to whom they presumed to be superior, were </i>un<i>righteous </i>(Romans 3:10) <i>and sinners </i>(Romans 3:20); and, since God is a God who, by definition, shows no partiality (<i>prosōpolēmpsia</i>) (Romans 2:11), [6] they stood in the dock together with them, liable to divine judgment (Romans 3:19).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">God, however, is a faithful God, and the story of the gospel is the story of God's initiative, in the face of his people's unfaithfulness (Romans 3:1-8), to bring his saving promises to fruition ("the righteousness of God") by, first, setting forth Messiah Jesus publicly as an atoning sacrifice (<i>hilast</i><i>ērion</i>), as a result of which his present justification of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus is demonstrated to be both gracious <i>and just </i>(Romans 3:21-26),<i> </i>[7] and, second, by raising the crucified Jesus from the dead "for our justification" (Romans 4:25). [8] </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Thus the difference between Paul and the Mosaic ordinance, and hence the apostle's intended rhetorical contrast, is easily seen. In the Torah, "justification" or "acquittal" is an analytical judgment, a judicial decision based on the facts of a given case. In Paul, the "justification" of an ungodly sinner is nothing of the sort; it is rather, as Moo puts it, "a creative act," a declaration of God the just judge whereby the believer is freely granted a new status as a forgiven sinner and member of God's new covenant people―a status conferred <i>solely </i>in union with Christ on the basis of what he has done, once for all, on his or her behalf. [9] For Paul, justification by faith is not the cheap forgiveness of a lenient judge who dispenses with justice in the interests of mercy. On the contrary, it came at a cost (cf. "redemption," Romans 3:24), the very life of God's own Son.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yet niggling questions remain. Foundational to Paul's theology is the axiomatic belief <i>that God is an impartial adjudicator who will render a just verdict </i>(dikaiokrisia)<i> at the last judgment </i>(Romans 2:5). How this works itself out has caused no little consternation among many of his readers. In Paul's words: </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="color: black;"><span><span><i>For
he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by
patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he
will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who
obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the
Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for
everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God
shows no partiality. </i></span></span></span><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span>(Romans
2:6-11, NRSV)</span></span></span></span></span>
</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Many, of course, simply choose to skip over this pothole on the "Romans Road," but such is hardly responsible, let alone wise; the rains will come, filling up the holes and inevitably tripping up the unwary or irresponsible. Others argue, based on Paul's catena of scriptural citations in 3:9-20, that these words are merely hypothetical: <i>if</i> Christ had not come (but he has) and the Law could be fulfilled (but it can't), this is how judgment would take place. [10] Still others, mostly writing from a Reformed vantage point, argue somewhat similarly that Paul is simply laying out the conditions for eternal life apart from Christ, which remain valid <i>if </i>one wants to "merit" salvation on one's own. [11] Still others, despairing of any solution that make it cohere with Paul's own (assumed Lutheranesque) theology, attribute it to others, such as non-Christian Jews in the form of a hypothetical synagogue sermon. [12]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">These are, however, counsels of despair. More importantly, they ignore indications <i>in the immediate context</i> itself that Paul intends what he says to be taken seriously. First, immediately after stating that "the doers of the Law will be justified" (i.e., eschatologically, at the Final Judgment; Romans 2:13), Paul provides examples of such "doers" in verses 14-15 when he speaks of Gentiles who, though not by nature having the Law, "do the things the Law requires" (<i>ta tou nomou poi</i><i>ōsin</i>), thereby demonstrating that "the work required by the Law is written on their hearts (<i>to ergon tou nomou grapton en tais kardiais aut</i><i>ōn</i>), a transparent allusion to the New Covenant promise of the Law written on the hearts of the people in Jeremiah 31 (LXX 38):33. [13]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Second, even more clear is Romans 2:25-29, where Paul brazenly redefines Jewish identity in terms of the circumcised heart (cf. Deuteronomy 30:6), "by the Spirit, not the letter" (<i>en pneumatu ou grammati</i>, v. 29); according to the Apostle, it is those who, regardless of whether or not they bear the marks of circumcision on their foreskin, "keep the righteous requirements of the Law" (<i>ta dikai</i><i>ōmata tou nomou phylass</i><i>ēi</i>; cf. Rom 8:4!) who will be "reckoned as circumcised" (<i>ouch h</i><i>ē akrobystia autou eis peritom</i><i>ēn logisth</i><i>ēsetai</i>) (v. 26; cf. Rom 4:4-5!). As if this were not clear enough, the parallels between Paul's Spirit/letter contrast here and in both Romans 7:6 and the classic New Covenant text of 2 Corinthians 3:6 make a Christian identification all but certain, as is almost universally recognized by New Testament scholars today. [14]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What this means is that the old "problem" of the seemingly uneasy relationship between "justification by faith" and "judgment according to works" has an elegant solution within Paul's thought on grace. To put it simply: <i>The incongruous grace that justifies also transforms.</i> <i>The grace that justifies is unconditioned but not unconditional</i> … if by the latter one means "no strings attached." John Barclay, a re-reading of whose recent work on Paul's teaching on grace provided the impetus for this series, writes:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Romans 2, with its affirmation of the ultimate [<i>dikaiokrisia</i>] of God (2:5), indicates that Paul <i>is</i> concerned to maintain the justice of the cosmos: when it comes to the final judgment, God will neither condone sin nor ignore its effects. Like <i>4 Ezra</i>, he insists that there <i>will</i> be a distinction between good and evil, a fit between the praise of God and the "good work" that it acknowledges (2:6-11). But ― and this is the crucial Pauline point ― <i>the basis for that fit, the foundation and frame of the patient good work that leads to eternal life, is an act of divine power, an incongruous gift to sinful humanity whose transformative effects will be evident at the judgment</i>. This incongruity (God's faithfulness to the faithless) is the ground for Paul's hope, in a world he considers corrupted by the universal effects of sin; it is also what gives him confidence, backed by experience, that God pays no regard to ethnic background, moral upbringing, or access to the Law. But <i>the purpose of the unfitting gift is to create a fit</i>, to turn lawless Gentiles into those who do the Law (2:12-15), and trespassing Jews into Spirit-circumcised servants who bear fruit for God (2:29; 7:6). God's dramatic act of righteousness in the face of human unrighteousness is designed to create not moral chaos but justified and purified creatures. As the letter proceeds, it will become clear that these persons are not old selves morally improved, but new creatures forged <i>ex nihilo</i> from the resurrection life of Christ, by an act of "calling into being" basic to the story of Abraham and of Israel as a whole. But it is clear already that this creation is <i>an incongruous gift</i> given without regard to prior worth, that founds an existence whose lived practice is <i>congruous</i> with the righteous judgment of God. [15]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Such a radical understanding of grace was unknown to Saul the Pharisee who, as E. P. Sanders was right to remind us, knew a lot about grace. It was forged by Paul the Apostle's experience of its power in his incongruous call on the road to Damascus and in his long and deep reflections on Israel's Scriptures. And it remains unimaginably glorious to all who<i> </i>experience it today through the Spirit-empowered word of Paul's gospel. <i>Soli Deo Gloria!</i></span></p><p>
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">[1] James D. G. Dunn, <i>Romans 1-8</i> (AB 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988) 204. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[2] The principle is also found in the prophets (Isaiah 5:23) and the writings (Proverbs 17:15; 24:24).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[3] C. K. Barrett, <i>A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans</i> (HNTC; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1957) 88).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] C. E. B. Cranfield, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans</i>, 2 vols. (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79) 232.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[5] With Simon Gathercole, I take the <i>en physei</i> ("by nature") in Romans 2:14 with the previous participle <i>echonta</i> rather than with the following verb<i> poiōsin</i> ("A Law Unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2:14-15 Revisited," <i>JSNT</i> 85 [2002] 27-49. Cf. Wis. 13:1; Ignatius, <i>Eph</i>. 1:1.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[6] On this theme, cf. the classic work of Jouette M. Bassler, <i>Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom </i>(SBLDS 59; Chico, Cal: Scholars, 1982).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[7] For a full discussion of this passage, cf. my post, "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">What is the Gospel, Part 8 -- Romans 3:21-26 (Part 2)," @</span><span style="color: #222222;">http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-8-romans-321-26.html. Later, in Romans 5:6-8, Paul points to <i>Christ's </i>substitutionary death "for the ungodly" (<i>hyper aseb</i></span><i>ōn</i>) (on which, cf. Simon Gathercole, <i>Defending Substitution: An Essay on Substitution in Paul</i> [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015] 85-107) as the supreme demonstration (<i>synist</i><i>ēsin</i>) of <i>God's </i>love for us as "sinners." The implicitly Christology here is hard to miss (though many do their best to do so).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[8] On Romans 4:25, cf. my post, "Christ's Resurrection and Our Justification: Romans 4:25," @http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2021/04/christs-resurrection-and-our.html.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[9] Douglas J. Moo, <i>The Epistle to the Romans</i> (NIGTC; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996) 264.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[10] R. H. Bell, <i>No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18-3.20</i> (WUNT 106; T<span>übingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 253.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[11] I.e., similar to what I consider an erroneous interpretation of Galatians 3:10. Cf. the commentaries of old Presbyterian stalwarts such as Hodge and Murray; most recently Moo, 142.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[12] Cf. E. P. Sanders, <i>Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People </i>(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 123-35.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[13] Cf. Gathercole, "A Law Unto Themselves;" Cranfield, <i>Romans</i>, 155-59; N. T. Wright, "The Letter to the Romans," in <i>The New Interpreter's Bible</i>, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000) 440-42; John M. G. Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015) 467).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[14] Cf. also Romans 6:15-23; 8:1-17 (esp. 13).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[15] Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 473-74. One of the other potential "perfections" of grace discussed by Barclay is that of "efficacy," where the gift "fully achieves what it was designed to do" (p. 73). In light of his discussion of the transformative character of God's grace, which "creates a fit" such that it produces a positive verdict at the last assize, one wonders why he doesn't stress the efficaciousness of the gift as well. Indeed, he does recognize the presence of this idea in Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:9-10; Philippians 2:12-13) and understands it correctly, as did Calvin, in the sense of "the present, causative agency of God within the agency of believers," he plays it down, stating that efficacy "is given less attention than the Augustinian tradition might suggest," and "receives no special profile in Galatians and Romans" (p. 569). Perhaps not. But that begs the question, does it not, as to whether foundational ideas must always be brought to the surface when they are not the primary matters in dispute?</span></p><p><br /></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-33077862038887699312021-08-14T10:15:00.003-07:002021-08-14T12:11:06.435-07:00Who's Next, 50 Years On<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5rFOFgK9DRtF44ofEhuQsNf5_SIemI8Jf2Ie-6hz-Bv5EZAS82AK5jBSy0DM42eNpZUlvLwxr3AJBpaPe7x7hyphenhyphen17bMtLR9khFG2d6X5C2hCUlX_XOF147B5d32gcgz_EwI98mXLPYMUU/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5rFOFgK9DRtF44ofEhuQsNf5_SIemI8Jf2Ie-6hz-Bv5EZAS82AK5jBSy0DM42eNpZUlvLwxr3AJBpaPe7x7hyphenhyphen17bMtLR9khFG2d6X5C2hCUlX_XOF147B5d32gcgz_EwI98mXLPYMUU/w640-h640/image.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I had just finished 9th grade at Haverford Junior High a week or so earlier in June of 1971. My Phillies, despite the promise of surprising rookie centerfielder Willie Montanez, were headed for yet another last place finish in the NL East. But one sultry afternoon, out of my tinny transistor radio on Philadelphia's WIBG AM came the strains of a new song by the Who called "Won't Get Fooled Again" that immediately caught my attention. I had just studied the Who's rock opera "Tommy" in music class at school―along with Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Jesus Christ Superstar," to which I believed then, as I believe now, "Tommy" is in every way superior―and bought the album as a result. But this was something else entirely: more immediate, more visceral. In a word, better. By a large margin. And this was just the 3:35 single edit! When, two months later, the album on which it serves as the closer hit the stores, I immediately went out and bought it. They were some of the best 4 dollars I ever spent in my life.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">That album, <i>Who's Next</i>, turns 50 years old today. To this day, I consider that record to be Pete Townshend's masterpiece, one of the absolute greatest albums ever recorded in the rock era. <a href="http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/06/my-take-fifty-greatest-rootsrock-albums.html">On some days</a>, I even rank it second behind only Bruce Springsteen's unmatchable <i>Born to Run</i>. As I reflect on the music of my youth from this autumnal stage of my life, I am struck by the lightning-quick evolution of a music that began, in the mid-1950's, at the intersection of (black) blues/R&B and (white/hillbilly) country, perhaps exemplified best by the hybrid music of its two greatest early artists, Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley. This was music, and an ethos, diametrically opposite to the insipid popular music of the white middle America of the day. And, as has been rehearsed <i>ad nauseum</i> over the decades, while the "fad" seemed to fade here in America, the banner was taken up and championed across the pond in the British Isles, whose artists, most notably the Beatles and Rolling Stones, subsequently "invaded" America to win over America's youth with American sounds Americans had ignored and, in many cases, were unaware even existed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In the years following the British Invasion of 1963-64, there were lots of bands who tried imitating the Beatles' Merseyside sound or the Stones' blues stylings. And it was more of the same when the Beatles experimented with psychedelia in 1966-67. But. to me, the really significant bands were the ones who didn't seem to care about making hits, the ones for whom commercial concerns were decidedly secondary. For example, there were plenty of blues bands in that era, but Cream was <i>sui generis</i> because of the jazz sensibilities of drummer Ginger Baker and bassist Jack Bruce, which made their lengthy improvisational passages with Eric Clapton more than tiresome noodling, show-off exercises. Likewise, there were plenty of hard blues-rock bands with great guitar players, but only one Led Zeppelin, not simply because of the band's instrumental virtuosity and Robert Plant's preternatural vocal abilities, but because of Jimmy Page's subtle use of, as he puts it, "light and shade," and deft incorporation of English folk and world music into his blues and rock foundation. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The evolution of the Who fits here as well. They hit the scene in 1964 as a decidedly "Mod" English band with the garage rock/power pop single "I Can't Explain" in December of 1964. The following November they released one of their most famous songs, the minimalist, almost proto-punk "My Generation," with Roger Daltrey stuttering his lines and famously singing Townshend's lyric, "Hope I die before I get old" (Thankfully, both Roger and Pete didn't didn't get their wish; would that the same could be said for Keith and the Ox.) Over the next few years, the band put out a number of great singles ("Substitute," "Pictures of Lily," "I'm a Boy, " "Magic Bus") and albums (especially <i>The Who Sell Out</i>, which includes the excellent "I Can See for Miles"), that display both exquisite British humor and a growing pop sensibility. But then, in 1969, the band released the aforementioned <i>Tommy</i>, the first rock opera. In the hindsight of more than a half century, the artistic pretensions and ludicrous, puerile story line are blindingly obvious. Nevertheless, there are more than a few musical moments of lasting value (The Overture, where the Ox gets to show off his chops on the horn, "Pinball Wizard," "I'm Free," "We're Not Gonna Take It"). But the best was yet to come.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">As is well known, Townshend wanted to follow up his <i>Tommy</i> triumph with yet another, more ambitious project. Entitled <i>Lifehouse, </i>it was to be a multi-media, audience-interactive rock opera based on the teachings of his spiritual leader, Meher Baba. Ultimately, however, after none of his mates "got" the <i>Lifehouse</i> concept and he subsequently suffered a nervous breakdown, Townshend aborted the project, hired Glyn Johns as a new associate producer, and decided to put together a "regular" long player, incorporating what elements of the abandoned project as he could, none more significant than his (then) cutting edge use of synthesizers. The results, to put it mildly, were stunning.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;"><i>Tommy</i>, for all its historical significance, sounds terribly dated today. <i>Who's Next</i>, by contrast, remains as fresh today as it did when it first hit the shelves 50 years ago. Each and every song is a winner. There is no filler. All of Townshend and the Who's trademarks are here in spades: intelligent lyrics, instrumental prowess, humor, introspection, hard rockers and beautiful ballads, crushing power chords, heartbreakingly beautiful melodies, rhythmic foundation laid down by Townshend's guitar, letting the Ox and Keith Moon roam where they may. But the biggest revelation: Roger Daltrey's voice. Daltrey was always a fine vocalist, but here he discovers a depth and power matched by few others in the history of rock and roll. I almost fell off my chair the first time I heard him wail, "Out here in the fields," at the beginning of the classic opener, "Baba O'Riley" (known to viewers of <i>CSI:NY</i>). Rock and roll doesn't get any better than that … until you hear the next song, "Bargain," which proves a love song doesn't have to be pathetically sappy (of course, Townshend claims the song was written about God, <i>via </i>his late spiritual mentor Meher Baba, but that wouldn't make it much different, lyrically, from many CCM songs):</span> </span></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="353" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vsses7ImwtM" width="425" youtube-src-id="Vsses7ImwtM"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But, of course, Townshend saves the best for last, the aforementioned "Won't Get Fooled Again," in my view not only the Who's best song but one of the 10 or so greatest rock songs ever recorded. This song's power and, yes, majesty, is matched by a wisdom―attributed by Townshend to his being a <a href="https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-story-behind-the-song-50-years-of-the-whos-classic-wont-get-fooled-again/">"cynical English a**ehole"</a>―rarely found in the work of a 26 year old musician, taking on the naïve, revolutionary, youthful idealism of the time: </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span></span></span><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">We'll be fighting in the streets</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">With our children at our feet</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And the morals that they worship will be gone</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And the men who spurred us on</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Sit in judgement of all wrong</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">They decide and the shotgun sings the song</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'll tip my hat to the new constitution</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">Take a bow for the new revolution</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Smile and grin at the change all around</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Pick up my guitar and play</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Just like yesterday</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Then I'll get on my knees and pray</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">We don't get fooled again</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The change, it had to come</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">We knew it all along</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">We were liberated from the fold, that's all</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And the world looks just the same</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And history ain't changed</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'll tip my hat to the new constitution</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">Take a bow for the new revolution</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Smile and grin at the change all around</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Pick up my guitar and play</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Just like yesterday</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Then I'll get on my knees and pray</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">We don't get fooled again, no, no</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'll move myself and my family aside</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">If we happen to be left half alive</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Though I know that the hypnotized never lie</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px; text-align: center;"><span jsname="YS01Ge"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Do ya?</i></span></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px; text-align: center;"><span jsname="YS01Ge"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Yeah</i></span></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">There's nothing in the streets</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">Looks any different to me</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And the parting on the left</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Is now parting on the right</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">And the beards have all grown longer overnight</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 12px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'll tip my hat to the new constitution</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><div style="text-align: center;">Take a bow for the new revolution</div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Smile and grin at the change all around</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Pick up my guitar and play</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Just like yesterday</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Then I'll get on my knees and pray</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">We don't get fooled again</div></span><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;">Don't get fooled again, no, no</div></span></i></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; margin-bottom: 0px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yeah</span></i></div><span style="font-family: times;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: medium;">Meet the new boss</span></i></div><span jsname="YS01Ge"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: medium;">Same as the old boss</span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="342" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8gvv--t66m0" width="411" youtube-src-id="8gvv--t66m0"></iframe></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Musically, what always struck me were the power chords, the extended synthesizer passage near the end (signifying the change of regimes), and Daltrey's sublime scream prior to the triumphant final lines. But last night, listening to the song for the thousandth (?) time, I picked up on a hint that Pete understood the significance of the song he was recording. The staccato power chords that close the song are strikingly reminiscent of the endings of many of Beethoven's odd-numbered symphonies (obviously not the same, but the family resemblance is there despite being stripped down, as it were). This is not mere "pop" music written for your "entertainment," he seems to be telling us. Indeed, it is not. And I pity those whose musical exposure only extends to such ephemera.</span></p></span></span></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-35064147298047081522021-08-04T07:03:00.006-07:002021-08-04T14:10:01.128-07:00Simone Biles' Yips, the "Conservative" Fetish of Toughness, and Authentic Christianity<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Of all the thrills and compelling stories of this year's Tokyo Olympic Games―the exploits of Katie Ledecky and Caeleb Dressel in the pool, British diver Tom Daley finally winning an Olympic gold medal, Karsten Warholm of Norway's spectacular destruction of the world record in the 400 meter hurdles, the sportsmanship of high jumpers <span style="background-color: white; color: #101010;"><span>Mutaz-Essa Barshim</span></span> of Qatar and <span style="background-color: white; color: #101010;"><span>Gianmarco Tamberi of Italy, willing to share the gold medal</span></span>―no doubt the most compelling has concerned the travails of American gymnast <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/culture/simone-biles-olympics.html">Simone Biles</a>, the most decorated and surely the greatest female athlete in the sport's history, dropping out of the team and individual overall competitions, and three of the individual competitions for which she had qualified, because of what she described as the "twisties," the gymnastic equivalent of the "yips" commonly associated with athletes of other sports like golf (Tommy Armour) and baseball (Steve Blass, Steve Sax, Chuck Knoblauch).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Thankfully, Biles received support from many top-tier athletes (Michael Phelps, Rory McElroy, Ledecky) and a large percentage of the public, who instinctively understand the physical dangers involved at the intersection of mental health issues and the spectacular athletic feats her discipline demands, and are unwilling to pry into private matters that are, to be frank, none of their business. Not surprisingly, however, one segment of the population demurs, and has been more than ready to throw Biles under the bus. I am speaking, of course, of a certain kind of "conservative" found, more and more commonly, it seems, in both America and Britain. For example, British windbag <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9835069/PIERS-MORGAN-Sorry-Simone-boast-GOAT-selfishly-quit.html">Piers Morgan</a>―who himself stormed off the set of "Good Morning Britain" in a snit, never to return, over an argument about Meghan Markle (!) with a co-host―slammed Biles for "quitting" and "letting down" her teammates, fans, and country. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">More important, for my present purposes, have been the responses from many self-proclaimed "Christians" to Biles' decision to withdraw from many of her scheduled competitions. For example, college dropout <a href="https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1420416913914613763">Charlie Kirk</a> accused her of "softness," "shattering into a million pieces" once "the going gets tough," and of being a "sociopath." <a href="https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1420161095419957258">Jenna Ellis</a> concurred, accusing her of "selfishly abandoning her teammates" and lack of commitment and integrity. Blogger <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/posts/393112558837798">Matt Walsh</a> said much the same, spicing it up with a bit of implicit misogyny (or, at least, anti-feminist animus): "<span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;">Simone Biles quit on her team because she wasn't having fun. This is called being a quitter. It's completely disgraceful and selfish. I guarantee that most of the people defending it wouldn't be defending it if she was a man."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;">When reading such unkind moral pronouncements from people who know nothing of Biles' circumstances, the first thing that immediately strikes me is the blatantly <i>unchristian</i> nature of their self-righteous attitudes (more on this presently). But what strikes me, and what makes me even more sad and, if I'm to be honest, mad, is how such attitudes in much of so-called white "evangelicalism" increasingly coalesce with those found in what conservative journalist Charlie Sykes refers to as the "MAGAverse." In Sykes' words: </span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">[T]his is what makes the attacks on Biles so odd. </span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">At least on the surface, there was no tangible flashpoint in the culture war here. The assault on the gymnast wasn’t sparked by any act of protest on her part; and there is no discernible “conservative” principle involved in her concerns for her mental health.</span> </span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">But if the attacks lack a coherent idea, they share an increasingly familiar posture. Despite all the rhetoric about individual freedom, the real fetish on the right is toughness.</span> </span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Men who show emotion, especially those who cry, are weak. Young women who fail to perform are “quitters.” All that matters is strength, winning and a weird obsession with machismo. Just look at Trump’s rebuke on Wednesday of the “RINOs” he accused of helping Democrats get the infrastructure deal passed: “It is a loser for the USA, a terrible deal, and makes the Republicans look weak, foolish, and dumb.” Not responsive to constituents or committed to bipartisanship but weak.</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This might sound familiar.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“What is good?” asked Friedrich Nietzsche. “Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.” </span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What is evil? “Whatever springs from weakness.” (If the German philosopher were alive, he’d almost certainly have a show on Fox News.) … </span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In this brave new world of faux-toughness, Biles as an individual simply does not matter—she is merely an instrument of national greatness, with her actual humanity regarded as an inconvenient afterthought.</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">That’s why her critics spend so little time dealing with the role that stress, pressure and a history of sexual abuse likely played in Biles’ decision, because that would mean having to think of her as a person, and for critics like Charlie Kirk and the others, that is utterly irrelevant.</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This is also the new ethos on the right. Adam Serwer has famously noted that in Trump’s America, ‘the cruelty is the point.”</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But in late-stage Trumpism, it is not just the cruelty: The lack of empathy is also the point. Insensitivity is cultivated; compassion is derided as weakness.</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So, we are left with this moment of high absurdity, in which a symbol of human excellence and American greatness is being mocked by bloated white man-children for being “weak.”</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">They have decided that Simone Biles represents everything they oppose.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">How revealing is that? </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>(Read the whole piece </span><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/29/simone-biles-and-the-magaverses-fetish-of-toughness-501515">here</a><span>).</span> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">This analysis strikes me as unusually perceptive … and damning. Over the past decade or so I have gotten tired of pointing out to lay evangelicals the blatant incompatibility of the ideas of Ayn Rand and those of Christianity, Paul Ryan's futile attempted synthesis notwithstanding. Now, however, what we clearly have is an unwitting,</span><i style="background-color: white;"> de facto</i><span style="background-color: white;"> synthesis of Nietzsche and Christianity which, considering the inherent incompatibility of the two, necessarily produces a bastard form of the latter. In the passage cited above, Sykes quotes Nietzsche, from his famous </span><i style="background-color: white;">The Antichrist</i><span style="background-color: white;">. [1] Subsequent to the words found above, Nietzsche wrote, "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;">The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122;">our</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity." </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #202122;">Make no mistake. Friedrich Nietzsche, for all his impiety and atheism, understood something about the fundamental nature of the Christian faith that is lost to the vast multitudes of American white evangelicals for whom Kristen Kobes DuMez wrote her provocative and compelling </span><i style="color: #202122;">Jesus and John Wayne </i><span style="color: #202122;">[2] ―those, like </span><a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/more-on-the-masculine-feel-of-christianity" style="color: #202122;">John Piper</a><span style="color: #202122;">, who tout the "masculine feel" of Christianity and lament its supposed "feminization" and increasing "softness" in recent decades. Indeed, the New Testament talks a lot about power. It speaks of authority. It speaks of strength. </span><i style="color: #202122;">But it turns conventional wisdom and thinking about these matters on its head</i><span style="color: #202122;">. God's wisdom and God's power, according to Paul the Apostle, find their climactic expression in the cross of Messiah Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:18-31), so much so that he can summarize his message by means of the ultimate oxymoron, "Christ crucified" (</span><i style="color: #202122;">christon estaurōmenon</i><span style="color: #202122;">, 1 Cor 1:23). The Messiah, </span><i style="color: #202122;">by definition</i><span style="color: #202122;">, was to be a "winner." Crucified men, on the other hand, </span><i style="color: #202122;">by definition</i><span style="color: #202122;">, were "losers," vanquished by the reigning imperial power and exposed publicly for the masses to see with their own eyes what happened to those who resisted its will. But God's "foolishness," manifested in the cross, proved wiser than human wisdom (1 Cor 1:25); he chose the "weak things" of the world to "put to shame" (<i>kataischyn</i></span></span><i style="color: #202122;">ēi</i><span style="color: #202122;">) the strong (1 Cor 1:27); </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #202122;">the Messiah's apparent "defeat" on the cross proved in fact to be his public disarming of, indeed his triumph (<i>thriambeusas</i>) over, the dark spiritual powers that had held the world in their grip, working <i>through</i> those worldly authorities that put him to death (Colossians 2:15). Indeed, in the primitive Christian hymn embedded in Philippians 2, Christ's ultimate exaltation to Lordship occurred only <i>after </i>he had refused to use his divine equality (<i>to einai isa the</i></span></span><i style="color: #202122;">ōi</i><span style="color: #202122;">, Phil 2:6) for his own advantage (<i>ouch harpargmon hēgēsato</i>), but "emptied himself" by "taking the form of a slave," becoming human and dying a slave's death on a Roman cross (Phil 2:6-11). [3] And it was precisely <i>because</i> he existed "in the form of God" (<i>en morph</i></span><i style="color: #202122;">ēi theou</i><span style="color: #202122;">, Phil 2:6) that he exhibited such transcendent vulnerability for the sake of those who one day would confess, "Jesus Christ is Lord," to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). [4] </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #202122;">This is important because it is not simply a matter of Christians <i>worshipping</i> the Jesus who humbled himself and secured their salvation via the path of weakness. [5] More to the point, Christ's example of weakness and self-sacrifice overturns the values of the world and thus must be the <i>pattern</i> for the lives of those who aim to be his followers. [6] Nowhere is this more clear than in 2 Corinthians 10-13, where Paul takes on self-aggrandizing, boastful Jewish Christian opponents he deems "super-apostles" (<i>hoi hyperlian apostol</i></span><i style="color: #202122;">ōn</i><span style="color: #202122;">, 2 Cor 11:5). In the middle of his rhetorical response he asks the Corinthians to indulge him in a bit of folly as he proceeds to "boast" to keep up, as it were, with these false apostles. The problem, however, is that the things he boasts in are all the <i>wrong things</i>, whether looked at from the perspective of the Greco-Roman honor-shame culture or that of today's western world: imprisonment, beatings, shipwrecks, sleeplessness, hunger (2 Cor 11:16-29). Capping it off he mentions the time he fled from Aretas IV of Damascus, escaping with, and no doubt afraid for, his life in a basket lowered from the city walls (2 Cor 11:33-36). When the going got tough, he ran!</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #202122;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Fundamental for Paul was the lesson he learned when he prayed for the removal of the unidentified "thorn in (his) flesh" that plagued him throughout his career (2 Cor 12:7). The Lord's answer to this prayer is one all his followers must learn: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor 12:8). For that reason, Paul's only boast was in his weaknesses, for it was only in them and through them that Christ's power could rest upon him and work through him (2 Cor 12:9). C. K. Barrett notes:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #202122;">[A] scene of human weakness is the best possible stage for the display of divine power. So far from <i>coming to perfection</i>, divine power is scarcely perceptible in the impressive activities of the ecclesiastical potentates with whom Paul has to contend. It is when he is weak, really weak</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;">—poor, sick, humiliated, despised, unloved by his own spiritual children as well as scorned by the world</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;">—that God's power comes into view. For 'God's foolishness is wiser than men, and God's weakness is stronger than men' (I Cor. i. 25). [7]</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Let us never forget that.</span></p><p><br /></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><span style="font-family: times;">[1] Friedrich Nietzsche, <i>The Antichrist</i>, trans. H. L. Mencken (New York: Knopf, 1918) §2.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[2] Kristen Kobes DuMez, <i>Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation</i> (New York: Liveright, 2020).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[3] Cf. N.T. Wright, "Jesus Christ is Lord: Philippians 2:5-11," in <i>The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and Law in Pauline Theology</i> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 56-98.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] Understanding, with Moule, the participle <i>hyparch</i><i style="color: #202122;">ōn</i><span style="color: #202122;"> in verse 5 in a causal rather than, as by most, in a concessive, sense. C. F. D. Moule, "Further Reflexions on Philippians 2:5-11," in <i>Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 60th Birthday</i>, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 264-76.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="color: #202122;">[5] On the early Christian worship of Jesus, cf. esp. Richard Bauckham, </span><i style="color: #202122;">Jesus and the God of Israel: </i><span style="color: #202122;">God Crucified</span><span style="color: #202122;"><i> and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity </i>(Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008) 127-51; Larry W. Hurtado, <i>Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003).</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #202122; font-family: times;">[6] Cf. Timothy B. Savage, <i>Power Through Weakness: Paul's Understanding of Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians</i> (SNTSMS 86; Cambridge: CUP, 1996).</span></p><p><span style="color: #202122; font-family: times;">[7] C. K. Barrett, <i>A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians</i> (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 317.</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="story-text__paragraph" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.875rem; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: times;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></p></blockquote>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-24574962227293040522021-08-03T08:42:00.000-07:002021-08-03T08:42:17.637-07:00The Unimaginable Glory of the Gospel: Romans 4:5 (Part 4)<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about―but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><i>Abraham trusted in God, and it was credited to his account for righteousness" </i>[Genesis 15:6]<i>. Now to the one who works, wages are not paid as a gift, but rather as what is owed. But to the person who doesn't work, but places trust in the One who justifies the ungodly, his or her faith is "credited for righteousness."</i> (Romans 4:2-5, trans. JRM)</span></span></div><p></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /><span>At last we come to Romans 4:4-5, where what I have dubbed the "unimaginable glory" of Paul's eschatological gospel of God's saving righteousness comes to its most shocking, radical expression. These verses, with their memorable characterization of God as the One who "justifies the ungodly," are often viewed as being theologically programmatic, not only in popular evangelicalism, but in scholarly circles as well. [1] This is largely due to the widespread opinion that Paul, in verse 4, is simply laying down a "general principle" or "generally applicable rule" [2] ―in other words, one with <i>trans-temporal</i> or <i>timeless</i> theological implications directly detrimental to his (implied) Jewish interlocutors and anybody else who, supposedly like them, desired then or desires now to secure his or her position before God by means of moral effort. However, though Paul certainly is at pains in this chapter to present Abraham's example as <i>the </i>paradigm for those Jews and Gentiles who, through faith in Christ, are to become his children "according to the promise" (cf. esp. 4:23), closer inspection makes it abundantly clear that the Apostle is being, as usual, more subtle than this. <i>Indeed, verses 4-5 operate on two levels</i>: at ground level, as it were, he is simply interpreting his text, Genesis 15:6, in the context of Genesis 15 as a whole; yet he presents this interpretation in such a way that at a second level, ongoing implications for his readers are drawn out for the matter at hand.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The clearest pointer to this multi-level strategy is the usually neglected (unobserved?), yet surely not coincidental, fact that the term generally translated "wages" in Romans 4:4, <i>misthos</i>, occurs in Genesis 15:1 LXX [3] with reference to the <i>reward</i> promised to Abram, the <i>inheritance </i>he would receive<i> </i>consisting in countless descendants (Genesis 15:5) from many nations (Genesis 17:5; Romans 4:17). At ground level, the issue Paul is dealing with concerns what, if anything, could have motivated God to reward Abram with this promise. As far as the second level significance for Paul's readers is concerned, what is at stake, if the originating scriptural context is taken seriously, is being identified as one of these promised <i>eschatological </i>descendants of Abraham, children of the promise of Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18 (cf. Galatians 3:8). [4] To make his case, Paul walks a tightrope, making his contemporary point by means of a close reading of the Genesis text itself. [5]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">When Paul speaks of Abraham's "reward," one is tempted to look for something that would have prompted such a response from God. What Paul noticed in Genesis, as significantly as surprisingly, was the <i>absence</i> of such a precipitating act or "work" on the Patriarch's part. Nothing he had done <i>warranted </i>such an initiative of divine beneficence. And it is this very asymmetry or lack of correspondence that the Apostle highlights in verses 4-5. Instead, what we find in the Genesis story is this: God promised Abraham an innumerable progeny (Gen 15:5); Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to his account for righteousness" (Gen 15:6); and God concretized that "crediting" by cutting a covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:7-21). From the shape of this narrative Paul then makes a fundamental theological deduction about how human beings now can and <i>must</i> relate to God if they are to be counted as Abraham's children "according to the promise."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Utilizing the common accounting term <i>logizōmai</i> ("I reckon, calculate, charge to one's account"), derived from Genesis 15:6, Paul applies both what the text says and what it does not say to the matter at hand. He does so by making a contrast between two potential ways of "calculating" pay or favor to a person. This rhetorical contrast, summed up in the prepositional phrases <i>kata charin </i>("as a gift") and <i>kata opheilēma</i> ("as [one's] due"), could not be more stark. On the one hand, those who work are not remunerated voluntarily, as a gift; instead, they are paid as a matter of <i>obligation</i>. [6] On the other―and here the Apostle explicitly makes theological application to his readers' situation―the one who does <i>not </i>work, but (only) <i>believes in the One who justifies the ungodly</i>, his or her faith is counted for "righteousness." It is the second scenario which fit the narrated experience of Abraham, and thus it is also, <i>by definition</i>, the one which must fit the experience of his children of promise.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>[[Once again, as an aside, as was mentioned above, one must be careful not to over-mirror-read the participial constructions <i>tōi … ergazomenōi </i>and <i>tōi </i></span><i>… m</i><i>ē ergazomenōi pisteuonti de</i><span> ("to the one who works"/"to the one who does not work, but believes") so as to attribute to Paul's Jewish contemporaries the pretension that they could <i>earn </i>or <i>establish</i> their position before God by the performance of works <i>apart from grace</i>. [7] Of course, this text may legitimately be <i>used </i>to refute such a pipe dream should anybody have it, but Paul's point, stripped of such illegitimate polemics, is far more simple: Abraham―and by extension anybody else on this side of the Christ event who wants to be counted among his children―did nothing to render him <i>deserving</i> of the "gift" he received from God, namely, being given the promise of a worldwide family and being "put in the right" as God's covenant partner. [8] ]]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>Paul's description of God as the "One who justifies the ungodly" (<i>ton dikaiounta ton aseb</i></span></span><i>ē</i><span>) </span><span><span>has direct relevance to the foundational Abraham narrative, and not merely because the Patriarch, the prototypical proselyte of Jewish tradition, was an erstwhile pagan </span></span><span>from Ur</span><span>, and hence <i>by definition </i>"ungodly," before being chosen by God (narratively speaking) to be his covenant partner. Indeed, God's promise to Abraham, <i>from the very start in Genesis 12</i>, involved the eschatological "blessing" of all peoples of the earth―which the Apostle equates with "justification" in Galatians 3―"in" the Patriarch. </span><span>Here in Romans 4, Paul interprets God's promise of a countless progeny (Gen 15:5) in light of the (later) divine claim to have made Abraham "a father of many nations" (Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17).</span><span> "Ungodliness" (<i>asebeia</i>) was, to the Jewish mind, characteristic of the Gentile world, without the Law and thus unable to meet God's moral demands (Rom 1:18!). Yet Paul's master stroke in this letter was to paint his fellow Jews into a corner from which they could not escape and put them into the dock along with the Gentiles (Rom 2:1-3:20). God, however, is a God who is faithful to his covenant promises. And so, in manifestation of his saving "righteousness," Christ "died for the ungodly" (<i>hyper hēmōn apethanen</i>, Rom 5:6), <i>Jew and Gentile alike</i>. Only on that basis could they be "justified" and become members of the family promised to Abraham in Genesis 15.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Paul's language of "justifying the ungodly" in verse 5 corresponds in function to the formulation "credited as a gift" (<i>logizesthai kata charin</i>) in verse 4, and thus recalls Romans 3:24, where "all" (i.e., Jews and Gentiles) </span><span>who believe</span><span>, being sinners, are "justified freely by (God's) grace" (<i>dikaioumenoi d</i></span><i>ōrean t</i><i>ēi autou chariti</i><span>) through the redemption in Christ Jesus." And it is here, with the language of "grace," that what we have described as Paul's redefinition project in Romans 4 is seen to involve a third element. </span><span>As we have emphasized, </span><span>in light of the eschatological manifestation of God's saving righteousness in Christ, </span><span>the Apostle believed he had no choice but, for want of a better term, to redefine the classic Second Temple Jewish doctrine of election: he has redefined, first, who the "seed" of Abraham are who inherit the covenant promises; second, he has correspondingly redefined who the "righteous" are; and now, third, in doing these first two he has thereby radically redefined what God's "grace" entails.</span><span> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>At this point one should note that Paul, in using the language of "grace" (</span><i>charis</i><span>) [9], was not, </span><span>as is sometimes imagined in popular Christian circles, </span><span>utilizing a technical term with the sense of "undeserved favor." Indeed, when used in the sense of a favor or gift given, the term had no <i>necessary </i>connotations of being undeserved. But for Paul, God's gift of Christ most certainly </span><i>was </i><span>undeserved: rather than it being the vindication of the godly, it was the justification of the <i>un</i>godly. Along these lines, Paul, by excluding "works (of the Law)" as the path to "justification" (Rom 3:28) or the inheritance of the promise (Rom 4:16), thereby excludes all potential human determinants of value ("symbolic capital") in the sight of God, be they moral achievement ("Old Perspective") or tokens of ethnic, covenantal privilege ("New Perspective"). And thus, because God gives his Gift to the ungodly, his grace is entirely </span><i>unconditioned</i><span>. To put it differently, because there is no "fit" between the person and God's gift to her, God's grace, in Barclay's terms, is utterly "</span><i>incongruous.</i><span>" "God acts," he writes, "in the absence of human worth." [10]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But is faith to be seen, in some sense, to be a token of worth accepted by God <i>in the place of works</i>? For instance, Joseph Fitzmyer interprets Romans 4:3 thus: "Abraham's faith was counted by God as uprightness, because God sees things as they are." [11] Such a reading, however, misses Paul's point entirely. Indeed, his point in adducing the example of Abraham is that God's pronouncement of justification is <i>not</i> the result of his "seeing things as they are." Justification of the ungodly means acquittal <i>on the basis of no human presupposition</i>. For Paul, the "crediting of faith for righteousness" (Rom 4:3) means for God to credit "righteousness" (=the [forensic] status of "being in the right") to a person's account (Rom 4:6); it means <i>not</i> to have one's sins counted against him (Psalm 32:2; Rom 4:8). Hence faith, far from being a potential token of value, is instead, in the words of Barclay, </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">not an alternative human achievement nor a refined human spirituality, but a declaration of bankruptcy, a radical and shattering recognition that the only capital in God's economy is the gift of Christ crucified and risen. [12]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Indeed, in the case of Abraham, the faith which God calculated in his favor was simple, unadorned trust in the promise he had been given, no matter how outrageous, on the face of it, that promise appeared to be. Abraham's faith merely consisted, as Käsemann put it, in his "Yes to the message of … God." [13] And what was this promise? It was the promise of a son, which was, in the normal course of things, impossible for people of his and Sarai's age (Rom 4:19; cf. Gen 17:1, 17). Yet he took God at his word, and his faith, his "unconditional trust" and "utter dependence" on the truth of God's promise, [14] is the paradigm for his heirs today.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><i>That</i> Abraham is the paradigm of faith for those who would "walk in his footsteps" (<i>tois stoichousin tois ichnesin</i>, </span><span>Rom 4:12)</span><span> and be counted his eschatological children is made clear in the peroration to his midrash in verses 23-24: "It was not written for his [i.e., Abraham's] sake alone that 'It was reckoned,' but for our sakes as well, to whom it [i.e., our faith] is to be reckoned …" What is more, it is not simply "faith" as a dispositional quality that the Patriarch and his spiritual children have in common. Paul insists, rather, that the faith exercised by Abraham <i>is the very same faith that Christians exercise when they confess, "Jesus is Lord," and believe God raised him from the dead</i> (Romans 10:9). [15]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Paul develops the nature of Abraham's faith by means of a two-fold description of the God in whom he placed his trust: He is "the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that do not exist into being" (<i>theou tou zōiopoiountas tous nekrous kai kalountas ta mē onta hōs onta</i>, Rom 4:17). [16] From Genesis 15 the Apostle learned that the Patriarch's faith consisted in his unswerving faith [17] that God, despite the "deadness" of his and Sarai's reproductive organs (Rom 4:19), had the power to do what he had promised [18] and provide him with the son he previously had been unable to bear. By doing so God thus called into being the "seed" which were to become the bearers of the initial promise to Abraham to be the conduit of blessing for all peoples on earth (Gen 12:3).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>As one can readily see, Abraham's faith that God would "raise" his and his wife's procreative capacities from the dead has a certain parallel with the earliest, most basic Christian confession, to which Paul alludes in verse 24, when he refers to those who "believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (<i>tois pisteuousin epi ton egeiranta 'Iēsoun ton kyrion hēmōn ek nekrōn</i>; cf. Rom 10:9). But the linkage is closer than one based on analogy alone. For Paul's entire argument in Romans 3:21-4:25 is concerned to show how God's covenant promises to Abraham have been fulfilled in Christ, <i>who is the "seed" of Abraham "according to the flesh" (</i>kata sarka<i>) </i>[19] <i>and who thus, </i></span><i>through his death and resurrection, </i><i>brought the covenant benefits to Jews and Gentiles alike who believe </i><span>(Rom 4:25).</span><span> God, in raising Jesus our Lord back to life, shows himself to be the God who gives life to the dead. God, in creating a worldwide family of Jews and Gentiles who mirror his faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead, shows himself to be the God who acts by the principle of </span><i>creatio ex nihilo</i><span>. And so we see how the faith of Abraham is the very same faith exercised by believers in Christ today.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One more thing. I would like to suggest that one further aspect of God's gracious operation by the principle of <i>creatio ex nihilo</i> consists in the very faith through which a believer is accounted "righteous" before God. As was mentioned above, this "faith" is not to be understood as a sort of dispositional achievement on the part of the believer that conceivably could be viewed as a token of worth or symbolic capital that might prompt God's favor. Indeed, in the programmatic Romans 1:16-17, Paul declares that the gospel―defined in Romans 1:3-4 as the Scripture-fulfilling messianic career and resurrection of Jesus, God's "Son" [20]―is not a bare recitation of gospel "events" and an "invitation" to believe, but <span><i>a royal announcement </i></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><em style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">whose very proclamation unleashes God’s power </em><em style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">to “call” people effectively to salvation through faith. </em><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">[21] God's grace carries no antecedent conditions. Human inadequacies are met by <i>created </i>divine adequacy. The ungodly are thereby justified. But, one wonders, is this just? And is this the end of the matter? These questions await the next, and final, installment, of the series.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">[1] One thinks especially of the eloquence of Ernst Käsemann in his avowedly Lutheran contrasting of the principles of "works" and "faith" as means of justification, not only in his estimable <i>Commentary on Romans </i>(trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), but in his earlier essay, "<span>The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4," in </span><i>Pauline Perspectives</i><span>, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 79-101. This perspective, of course, abounds in Anglophone scholarship as well, not least in "evangelical" scholarship. See, e.g., Douglas J. Moo, </span><i>The Epistle to the Romans</i><span> [NICNT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996) 263-65; </span><span>Thomas R. Schreiner, </span><i>Romans</i><span> (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 220; and especially Simon Gathercole, <i>Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002) 244-46.</span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span>[2] For the former, Moo, <i>Romans</i>, 263; for the latter ("eine allgemein geltende Regel"), Otto Kuss, <i>Der R</i></span><i>ömerbrief: übersetz und erklärt</i>, 3 vols. (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1963) 1:182 (cited by N. T. Wright, <span>"Paul and the Patriarch: The Role[s] of Abraham in Galatians and Romans," in </span><i>Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978-2013 </i><span>[</span><span>Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013] 554-91 [at 562]).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span>[3] <i>H</i></span><i>o misthos sou polys estai sphodra </i><span>(</span><span>"Your reward will be very great").</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] What is rarely observed is that Paul, in Romans 4:13, speaks of Abraham <i>and his "seed" </i>(<i>sperma</i>) receiving the promise to inherit "the world." Here his language, as in Galatians 3:16, almost certainly betrays the influence of Genesis 22:18. What this means is that the Apostle has conflated God's promise of a son to Abram in Genesis 15:4 with the promise to Abra<i>ham</i> in Genesis 17:5 that he would be the "father of many nations (Rom 4:17). And not only that. Explicitly in Galatians 3, and implicitly here in Romans 4, he has whittled down the physical seed through Isaac, the bearers of the promise <i>per se</i>, to a point, to Christ, who―so Paul argues in detail in Romans 3:21-26―has brought fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant through his death and resurrection (cf. Gal 3:16), and has correspondingly reinterpreted the promise of a worldwide family through the prism provided by the foundational promise to Abram in Genesis 12:3. One becomes a member of this eschatological "seed"―Jew and Gentile alike―only by means of union with the one "seed <i>par excellence</i>, Jesus Messiah.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[5] Francis Watson (and he is hardly alone in this) suggests the "reward" in context is "righteousness" (<i>Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective</i>, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007] 262). N. T. Wright considers this "hardly convincing" ("Paul and the Patriarch," 562 n.25), though I fail to see how. In verses 3-5, what is at issue is the crediting of "righteousness," however that is to be defined, to a person's account. Is this to be done as payment for what is due or as a gift (more on the latter anon)? Wright is at pains to emphasize the historical reference to Abraham in Paul's language and counter Pelagian mirror-reading exercises, both of which are all well and good. But even on his own terms, "righteousness" is cognate with "covenant membership" and the "reward" is to be identified with the covenant promises given to him in Genesis 15. Not to mention that Paul's point in the chapter is that Abraham's example is the paradigm for those who belong to his spiritual progeny.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[6] Here Paul uses the term <i>misthos </i>in the sense of "pay," playing on the ambiguity of the term used in Genesis 15:1 for Abram's "reward."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span>[7] Cf., </span><i>inter alia</i><span>, Gathercole, </span><i>Where Is Boasting?</i><span> 245, who identifies the "worker" of Romans 4:4 as Paul's implied interlocutor of 2:1-3:20. Even less </span><i>a propos</i><span> are anachronistic Augustinian value judgments such as that expressed by Moo, when he criticizes Paul's fellow Jews for their "synergism with respect to salvation" (</span><i>The Epistle to the Romans</i><span>, 263). The issue is not one of Augustinianism's appropriateness in terms of Systematic Theology (after all, I am an Augustinian myself). It is one of its relevance in this discussion <i>vis-à-vis</i> the <i>historia salutis </i>and Moo's anachronistic evaluation of Second Temple Jewish views of grace. The issues are exceedingly complex and to deal with them adequately would take us too far afield.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[8] Cf. John M. G. Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015) 484.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[9] Note, of course, that what we might refer to as Paul's "concept" of "grace" ought not be limited to his use of the term <i>charis</i>. Cf. Barclay's appendix, "The Lexicon of Gift: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, English," in <i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 575-82. One who isn't careful in this regard is James R. Harrison, <i>Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context </i>(WUNT 2.172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[10] This is the thesis of Barclay's magisterial <i>Paul and the Gift</i>. Cf. pp. 70-75, 331-574 (Quotation from 486).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[11] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, <i>Romans</i> (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 373. Cf. also J. A. Ziesler, <i>The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul</i> (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: CUP, 1972) 183-85.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[12] Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 383-84. It should go without saying that the notion I have often heard preached evangelistically in popular evangelical circles, that, in light of Christ's death for the world's sins, God has "lowered the bar," as it were, demanding faith only instead of perfect obedience for "salvation," completely misunderstands Paul. How "simple," it is said! Well, "simple," in the sense of "uncomplicated," granted. But certainly not "simple" in the sense of "easy." For such faith is, implicitly here in Romans 4, and explicitly elsewhere in Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:14), <i>impossible</i> to exercise apart from the Spirit's "call" through the effective word of the gospel.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span>[13] </span>Käsemann, <i>Commentary on Romans</i>, 112.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[14] James D. G. Dunn, <i>The Theology of Paul the Apostle</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998) 379.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[15] Richard Hays suggests that Abraham, instead of being merely an example or paradigm of faith, is to be "understood as a narrative prototype whose faith prefigures the faithfulness of Christ, through whom many are blessed," and that "'faith in Christ' plays no role in Rom 4" (Richard B. Hays, <i>The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture</i> [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005] xii-xiii; he develops these ideas in his 1985 article, "Abraham as Father of Jews and Gentiles," reprinted on pages 61-84 in this volume. That Abraham, as a covenant head, is a representative figure, is not denied. The problem is that the "faith" exercised by Abraham in Romans 4 does not mirror, in structural terms, the proposed "faithfulness" (<i>pistis</i>) exercised by Christ in Romans 3:21-26, let alone the "faith" that his spiritual children are called to exercise. Furthermore, such a proposal rests on the disputed subjective genitive interpretation of the seemingly intractable <i>pistis christou</i> construction, concerning which I remain convinced that the objective genitive is marginally preferable. Cf. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, <i>The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies </i>(Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[16] This is developed admirably by N. T. Wright, "Paul and the Patriarch," 560-61.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[17] Note that, not only was Abraham "strengthened in his faith," he "gave glory to God" (<i>dous doxan tōi theōi</i>) (Rom 4:20), a deliberate echo and reversal of Romans 1:21-23, implicitly affirming what the structure of the Genesis narrative suggests, <i>viz</i>., that Abraham's call was designed to be the solution of the problem of "Adamic" humanity.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[18] Cf. Barclay: "Paul traces a deep homology between the incongruity of divine grace and the incongruity of divine power" (<i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 489).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[19] Cf. Cranfield: "Between the quickening of Abraham's and Sarah's deadness for the purpose of procreation and the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead there is an inward connexion which is much more than the similarity between two events both of which may be spoke of in terms of [<i>zōiopoiēsis</i>]; for what gave unique and absolute significance to Abraham's begetting, and Sarah's bearing, of Isaac was the fact that it was of this child that Christ Himself was eventually to be a descendant [<i>kata sarka</i>]" (C. E. B. Cranfield, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans</i>, 2 vols. [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79] 1:251).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[20] Cf. James R. McGahey, "What Is the Gospel? Part 5: Romans 1:1-7," @http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-gospel-part-5-romans-11-7.html.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[21] Cf. Fitzmyer, 256: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">Whenever the gospel is proclaimed, God’s power becomes operative and succeeds in saving.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">His power thus catches up human beings and through the gospel brings them to salvation." Cf. my whole discussion in "What Is the Gospel? Part 6: Romans 1:16-17," @</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-6-romans-116-17.html.</span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-75357503329235107642021-07-19T08:19:00.002-07:002021-07-20T07:36:17.844-07:00The Unimaginable Glory of the Gospel: Romans 4:5 (Part 3)<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about―but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><i>Abraham trusted in God, and it was credited to his account for righteousness" </i>[Genesis 15:6]<i>. Now to the one who works, wages are not paid as a gift, but rather as what is owed. But to the person who doesn't work, but places trust in the One who justifies the ungodly, his or her faith is "credited for righteousness."</i> (Romans 4:2-5, trans. JRM)</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In Romans 4, the Apostle Paul turns to the example of Abraham, the patriarch to whom God made the Bible's fundamental covenantal promises (Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22), promises of a "seed" and, ultimately, of a multi-national family whose "blessing" would mark the reversal of the vertical (Genesis 3) and horizontal (Genesis 11) effects of primeval human sin―promises the apostle claims were fulfilled through the eschatological manifestation of God's saving justice and faithfulness in the Christ event. For Paul, what <i>now </i>matters is belonging to the family of Abraham who receives blessing through Christ. It is here that complications arise, and hence controversies arose. What "seed" or family is he referring to? Is it the "seed" "according to the flesh" (Rom 4:1), the (Jewish) bearers of the promise who bear the mark of the covenant, i.e., circumcision? No, says Paul. What matters instead is belonging to his promised <i>worldwide</i> family (Rom 4:17), consisting of <i>both</i> the circumcised <i>and</i> the uncircumcised (Rom 4:11-12), who alike bear the fundamental Abrahamic family trait, namely the "faith" or "trust" the patriarch exhibited in response to the promise (Genesis 15) <i>before</i> he received the sign of circumcision (Genesis 17) (Rom 4:9-12).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">For those of us raised in evangelical or Confessionalist Protestant circles, this all may seem like Theology 101. But problems arise once one assumes that Paul, in Romans 4 (especially in the verses quoted above), is arguing at a principial, <i>trans-temporal</i>, soteriological level against "Jews"―or any other would-be Pelagian moralist, for that matter―who argued the opposite, namely, that "justification," and consequently "salvation," is <i>earned</i> by "good works" that can serve as a basis for "boasting" and staking a claim for oneself before God. [1] Paul is much more subtle in his argumentation than that.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Paul's project in Romans 4 is fundamentally one of <i>redefinition</i>. To be precise, he is redefining the classic Jewish concept of election as a consequence of what he believed to be the eschatological fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham in Christ's death and resurrection. [2] As we have already seen, the first aspect of this redefinition is that of Abraham's "seed" (<i>sperma</i>), the progeny who would be the beneficiaries of God's uncondition<i>ed</i> (as we shall see) promises to the patriarch (e.g., Genesis 15:5, 13; 17:7-10; 22:17-18). For Second Temple Jews, nothing was more fundamental than their adherence to circumcision as <i>the</i> mark of their <i>physical</i> and <i>hereditary </i>covenantal identity, based on the clear teaching found in Genesis 17:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="text Gen-17-9" id="en-NRSV-407" style="background-color: white; font-style: italic;">God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. </span><span class="text Gen-17-10" id="en-NRSV-408" style="background-color: white; font-style: italic;">This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. </span><span class="text Gen-17-11" id="en-NRSV-409" style="background-color: white; font-style: italic;">You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. </span><span class="text Gen-17-12" id="en-NRSV-410" style="background-color: white; font-style: italic;">Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. </span><span class="text Gen-17-13" id="en-NRSV-411" style="background-color: white;"><i>Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. </i>(Genesis 17:9-13, NRSV)</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Paul, however, as we have seen, drives a proverbial wedge between the physical seed of Abraham (<i>kata sarka</i>) and what we may describe as his "spiritual" seed (i.e., the eschatological seed of promise, <i>kata epangelian</i>). And he does so through what was, at the time, a revolutionary reinterpretation of Genesis 15:6. Traditionally, Jewish interpreters read Genesis 15:6 through the hermeneutical lens provided by the covenantal passages of Genesis 17 (circumcision) and Genesis 22 (the Akedah/binding of Isaac). Hence Abraham's "faith" in Genesis 15 was generally interpreted, prospectively, as his "faithfulness" under trial. [3] Thus 1 Maccabees 2:52:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and "it was credited to his account for righteousness?" </i>(1 Maccabees 2:52, trans. JRM) [4]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">And, lest we forget, in our haste to cast aspersions on Jews for their "legalistic" misinterpretation of the Genesis text, here is the Lord's brother, James:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Was not our father Abraham justified by works (ex ergōn edikaiōthē) when he offered up Isaac, his son, on the altar? You see that faith was working together (synergei) with his works, and that faith was brought to perfection by these works. And thus was fulfilled the Scripture which said, "And Abraham trusted God, and it was credited to his account for righteousness;" and he was called the friend of God</i> (James 2:21-23, trans. JRM) [5]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Paul, however, reads Genesis 15:6 through a different lens. In what is perhaps his earliest extant letter (49 CE?), he illuminates the text, not through the lens of Abraham's subsequent faithfulness, but rather by <i>looking backwards</i> to the earlier and foundational Genesis 12:3 (Galatians 3:6-9). [6] By doing so he thereby discovers Abraham's <i>trust in God's promise</i> to be the defining trait of those people who constitute the eschatological fulfillment of that promise, those who "by faith (in Christ)" are blessed <i>like</i> and <i>in</i> Abraham. Though he doesn't cite Genesis 12 here in Romans 4, Paul's quotation of Genesis 17:5 ("I have made you the father of many nations") indicates that it indeed provides the grid for his appropriation of Genesis 15:6 in verse 3. [7]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This redefinition of the <i>seed</i> of Abraham also leads necessarily to a redefinition of how "the righteous ones " (<i>hoi dikaioi</i>) are to be identified as well. In the Hebrew Bible, the term "righteousness," when applied to humans, most often takes on the ethical connotation of <i>behavior which is faithful to the obligations established by God's covenant with Israel</i> (e.g., Isaiah 5:7; 56:1) [8] A <i>righteous</i> person is thus one who faithfully observes the Torah and thereby is contrasted with those deemed to be "sinners" and "the wicked" (e.g., Psalm 1:5-6). Instructive in this regard is Ezekiel 18:5-9:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span class="text Ezek-18-5" id="en-NRSV-20855" style="background-color: white;">If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right—</span><span class="text Ezek-18-6" id="en-NRSV-20856" style="background-color: white;">if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel … [if he] </span></i><span class="text Ezek-18-9" id="en-NRSV-20859" style="background-color: white;"><i>follows my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances, acting faithfully—such a one is righteous; he shall surely live, says the LORD GOD.</i> (NRSV) [9]</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Importantly, it is these very "righteous ones" who, throughout Isaiah 40-55 and 56-66, are promised <i>vindication</i> ("justification") in the eschaton through the action of God's saving righteousness. Indeed, the prophet says that those who "pursue righteousness" can await the future manifestation of God's "righteousness" and "salvation" with confidence, in the certain hope that this saving deliverance will last "forever," "through all generations" (Isaiah 51:1-8).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It is in this light that we must understand Paul's somewhat strange conditional sentence in Romans 4:2. The issue in verses 1-8, as was also the case in the earlier Galatians 2:15-16, is this: <i>Who are the "righteous?" And on what basis are they thus considered or pronounced to be "in the right" with God? </i>Abraham, as the father of the Jews and the one to whom the foundational salvific promises were made, was rightly considered to be the paradigm of "righteousness" by both Paul and his implied interlocutors. Indeed, Second Temple Jews portrayed Abraham as the prototypical proselyte, a Gentile who turned away from idolatry to believe in, and worship, the one true God. [10] In every strand of Jewish literature from this period, Abraham's defining characteristic is considered to be his <i>faithfulness in keeping the Torah</i>. For example, the 2nd century BCE writing, <i>Jubilees</i>, says that "Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well-pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life" (<i>Jub.</i> 23:10). Also in the 2nd century BCE, ben Sira speaks of Abraham's prodigious Law-keeping and attainment of "glory" (<i>doxa</i>):</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="text Sir-44-19" style="background-color: white; position: relative;">Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations,<br /></span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="indent-1" style="background-color: white;"><span class="indent-1-breaks" style="line-height: 0;"> </span><span class="text Sir-44-19" style="position: relative;">and no one has been found like him in glory.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="text Sir-44-20" id="en-NRSV-33482" style="background-color: white; position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: inline; font-weight: 700; left: -4.4em; line-height: normal; position: absolute; top: auto; vertical-align: text-top;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="text Sir-44-20" id="en-NRSV-33482" style="background-color: white; position: relative;"></span></span></i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="text Sir-44-20" id="en-NRSV-33482" style="background-color: white; position: relative;">He kept the law of the Most High,<br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="indent-1" style="background-color: white;"><span class="indent-1-breaks" style="line-height: 0;"> </span><span class="text Sir-44-20" style="position: relative;">and entered into a covenant with him;<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="text Sir-44-20" style="background-color: white; position: relative;">he certified the covenant in his flesh,<br /></span></span><span><span class="indent-1" style="background-color: white;"><span class="indent-1-breaks" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 0;"> </span><span class="text Sir-44-20" style="position: relative;"><i>and when he was tested he proved faithful. </i>(Sirach 44:19-20, NRSV)</span></span></span> </span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Lest anyone consider this attribution of Torah-fidelity to be the product of ben Sira's fanciful, anachronistic imagination, consider the Book of Genesis itself, in which YHWH says to Isaac:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span class="text Gen-26-3" id="en-NRSV-696" style="background-color: white;">"Reside in this land as an alien, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. </span><span class="text Gen-26-4" id="en-NRSV-697" style="background-color: white;">I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, </span></i><span class="text Gen-26-5" id="en-NRSV-698" style="background-color: white;"><i>because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."</i> (Genesis 26:3-5, NRSV) [11]</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><span>Thus, when Paul, in verse 2, says that Abraham had something to "boast" about (<i>kauchēma</i>) if he had been "justified by works" (</span><i>ex ergōn edikaiōthē</i><span>), he expresses the seeming plausibility of that proposition in his religious milieu by using a so-called "first class condition," in which the condition (<i>ei</i> followed by an indicative verb) is presented as true for the sake of argument. It is likewise clear that the language of boasting, justification, and works reflects that found a few verses earlier in Romans 3:27-28. This fact suggests rather strongly that the "works" in question here in Romans 4:2 are, at the most basic level, works <i>of the Torah</i>, Jewish works arising from God's covenant with Israel, and not moral works <i>per se</i>, as if Paul were arguing at the level of abstract theological principle. [12] </span></span></span><span><span>Abraham, by this reckoning, would have been adjudged to be "righteous" (i.e., "justified") on the grounds of his observance of the (yet to be promulgated!) Torah, his <i>faithfulness </i>to his covenantal obligations. Understood theologically, in terms of Abraham's exemplary/paternal role, "justification," on this reading, would be a pronouncement made by means of a <i>descriptive</i> or <i>analytic</i> judgment: people are considered "righteous" <i>if and only if</i> their conduct, in contrast to that of the "ungodly" (<i>aseb</i></span></span><i>ēs</i><span>) </span><span>and "sinners" (<i>hamartoloi</i>), shows themselves to be so by their "delight in" (<i>to thel</i></span><i>ēma</i><span>), </span><span>and hence performance of, the Law (e.g., Psalm 1).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>Despite the seeming plausibility of Abraham's envisaged boast, Paul will have none of it. He abruptly, indeed shockingly, shoots such a proposition down: "But not before God" (<i>all' ou pros theon</i>). [13] He is at pains, in other words, to deny the very possibility that Abraham or, </span></span><i>a fortiori</i><span>, </span><span>anybody else for that matter</span><span>, could have been pronounced "righteous" based on the performance of the works prescribed in the Torah. These "works," though correctly understood as incumbent upon Abraham's physical seed as the means of their living within the (old) covenant, had been definitively ruled out by the saving righteousness of God, manifested <i>apart from the Law </i>(<i>chōris nomou</i>, Romans 3:21) in the Christ event, which alone brought the Abrahamic promises to fruition. </span><i>In retrospect</i><span>, Paul discovered these "works of the Law" to be what John Barclay has described as "dead currency," a "measure of value" no longer relevant, rendered redundant by the cross. [14]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But if this is so, it will require a non-traditional interpretation of Genesis 15:6 like the one provided by Paul both here and in Galatians 3. More significantly, it will require yet another redefinition, namely, that of the nature of "grace" or "the gift" (<i>charis</i>) that underlies the "good news" of the "now time" (Romans 3:21) revelation of God's righteousness. It is to this radical "perfection" of grace, as Barclay puts it, [15] in terms of <i>incongruity</i>, that we will turn in our next, and fourth, installment in this series. And it is there that we will see the unimaginable glory of the gospel.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">[1] The nadir of this perspective may be found in the writings of the preeminent Lutheran New Testament scholar of the latter half of the 20th century, Ernst Käsemann, who described Paul's assumed polemic against human "achievements" (<i>Leistungen</i>) in Romans 4 to be directed against "the hidden Jew in all of us" ("Paul and Israel," in <i>New Testament Questions of Today</i> [trans. W. J. Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969] 183-87 [at 186]). [As an aside, I suggest that a proper reading of, e.g., Romans 7 would rather suggest the problem to have been "the hidden Adam in the Jews."] Among commentators who have written post-"New Perspective," Douglas Moo is representative of those who fall into this trap. For example, when commenting on Romans 4:5, he interprets "the person who doesn't work" in terms of "the person who does not depend on her works for her standing before God" (Douglas J. Moo, <i>The Epistle to the Romans</i> [NICNT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996) 264). Somewhat more nuanced, but still critical of Jewish "synergism," is Simon J. Gathercole, <i>Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002) 232-48. On the contrary, as John Barclay argues, "There is no reason to think that here, or anywhere else in Romans, Paul targets a Jewish (or any other) presumption that one could 'earn' salvation by good works. He neither charges nor assumes that Law-keepers boast in their achievements, in the sense of looking to themselves, <i>rather than to God</i>, as the ground of their salvation" (John M. G. Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i> [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015] 484 and nn. 93-94 [italics his]).</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[2] See especially N. T. Wright, <i>Paul and the Faithfulness of God</i> (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 996.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[3] References in Jewish literature are available in all the standard commentaries. Cf. especially the full discussion in G. Walter Hansen, <i>Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts </i>(JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989) 175-99.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] Gk. <i>'Abraam ouchi en peirasmōi heurethē pistos, kai elogisthē autōi eis dikaiosyn</i><i>ēn</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[5] Moo attempts to harmonize James and Paul by maintaining that the two apostles use the term "justify" differently: "For Paul, 'justification' is the initial acceptance of the 'ungodly' by God … James, however, uses [<i>dikaio</i><i>ō</i>] in a more traditional sense, of the ultimate judgment of God over the life of a person. Paul, then, is insisting that Abraham could not have achieved a right standing with God through works; James, that Abraham could not have maintained that status, or gone free in the final judgment, without works" (<i>The Epistle to the Romans</i>, 261 n.28). I have no criticism with Moo's harmonization <i>per se</i>. I only wish he would have also given the same consideration to Second Temple Jewish interpreters, who likewise were not thinking of a definitive "justification" already effective in the midst of the present age. Paul's notion of a proleptic declaration of eschatological righteousness was, after all (despite partial parallels at Qumran), a theological <i>novum</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[6] Actually, Galatians 3:8 uses a conflated citation of Genesis 12:3 and 18:18 as the text to qualify the meaning of Genesis 15:6. Also lurking in the background, through its mention of Abraham's "seed," is Genesis 22:18. Textual details in James R. McGahey, "'No One Is Justified by 'Works of the Law' (Galatians 2:16A): The Nature and Rationale of Paul's Polemic Against "Works of the Law" in the Epistle to the Galatians," Ph.D. diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996, 212 n.63.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[7] Recognized by Gathercole, 243.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[8] For further texts, cf. BDB, 841-42; John Ziesler, <i>The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul</i> (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: CUP, 1972) 26.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[9] This usage is particularly common in the Psalms. For texts, see McGahey, 143 n.55. It then is a commonplace in every strand of post-biblical literature. For texts, cf. McGahey, 144 n.56.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[10] E.g., <i>Jub.</i> 11:15-17; Josephus, <i>Ant.</i> 1.155; Philo, <i>Virt.</i> 20.102-104. Later rabbinic writings emphasize this point. Cf. <i>Tanḥuma</i> 32a: "The father of all proselytes was Abraham." Cf. also <i>m. Ned</i> 3:11.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[11] Cf. also the Damascus Document at Qumran: "Abraham … was accounted a friend of God because he kept the commandments of God" (CD 3:2-3).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[12] Thus, e.g., James D. G. Dunn, <i>Romans 1-8</i> (WBC 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988) 200; N. T. Wright, "Paul and the Patriarch: The Role(s) of Abraham in Galatians and Romans," in <i>Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978-2013 </i>(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 554-91 (at 584-85); J. R. Daniel Kirk, <i>Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008) 62.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[13] That Paul's categorical denial is meant to negate the entire condition, protasis and apodosis alike, instead of the protasis alone (in which case Paul would acknowledge the legitimacy of a boast <i>before humans</i>), has been persuasively argued by C. E. B. Cranfield, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans</i>, 2 vols. (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79) 1:228.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[14] Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 383. Indeed, writing on Galatians 2, he adds: "in fact, as Scripture shows, it was never the currency some have taken it to be (cf. Gal 3:10-12, 21)." Paul uses the same argument, as we have seen, in Romans 4:15, when he (again retrospectively) argues that "the Law works wrath."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[15] <i>Ibid.</i>, 70-75, 331-574.</span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-9594633731996339342021-07-15T07:50:00.001-07:002021-07-15T08:39:47.615-07:00The Unimaginable Glory of the Gospel: Romans 4:5 (Part 2)<p> </p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Romans 4 </span><span>has, not without justification, been deemed a "midrash" or commentary on Genesis 15:6, [1] which Paul quotes in verse 3:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">Abraham trusted in God, and it was credited to his account for righteousness</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> (Romans 4:3, trans. JRM)</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Indeed, the apostle proceeds to elaborate, first, on the meaning of "credited … as righteousness" (<i>elogisthē </i></span><span>…</span><span> <i>eis dikaiosyn</i></span><i>ēn</i><span>) in verses 4-12, and second, on the meaning of "believed/trusted" (<i>episteusen</i>) in verses 13-21. In doing so, as we saw in our previous post, he he takes up the two major threads introduced in Romans 3:27-31: first, that "justification"―the acquittal or pronouncement that one is "in the right" or "innocent" (<i>dikaios</i>) at the bar of God's eschatological tribunal―comes through faith rather than through Jewish "works of the Law" (3:27-28); and second, that these "works of the Law" are excluded because the "oneness" of God, confessed in the <i>Shema</i>, necessitates that justification be on the same basis, that of faith, for Gentiles as well as Jews (3:29-30). The Abraham story, explicated in chapter 4, is brought forward as demonstration that "faith" "upholds" (<i>histanomen</i>) rather than "invalidates" (<i>katargoumen</i>) the Torah, properly understood (3:31).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>This analysis readily shows that Paul adduces the example of Abraham, not simply to point to him as an Old Testament <i>exemplar</i> to "prove" that people have <i>always</i> been "justified by faith," but―as he had previously done in Galatians 3:6-9―to ground his law-free mission to the Gentiles, which he believed was the eschatological fulfillment of God's covenant promises to the patriarch. Most important, to Paul, was the fact that God promised </span><span>Abraham a "seed" (Genesis 15:5) as numerous as the stars visible in a nocturnal Middle Eastern sky. This promised "seed" was to be his "inheritance," his "very great reward" (Genesis 15:1). [2] The issue, though developed somewhat differently here in Romans 4, is the same as that in (the earlier) Galatians chapter 3: <i>Who belongs to this seed of Abraham promised in Genesis 15?</i> Is Abraham to be understood entirely, or at least <i>necessarily</i>, as "our forefather according to the flesh" (Romans 4:1), with all the covenantal implications found in, for example, Genesis 17? [3] No, Paul argues here in Romans 4. The <i>scope</i> of God's promises to Abraham must not be limited to those who are "of the Law" (<i>ek nomou</i>), that is, Jews (Romans 4:14, 16), those whose circumcision marked them as the bearers of the Abrahamic promise. Rather, since God has, in the words of the promise, "made [Abraham] a father of <i>many </i>nations" (Gen 17:5), he is instead to be viewed as the "father of us all" who "believe" like he did (Rom 4:16-17). </span></span><span>What often goes unacknowledged at this point is that here in Romans 4 Paul, as N. T. Wright forcefully argues, is </span><i>redefining</i><span> the classic Second Temple Jewish doctrine of election for the eschaton. [4] What ultimately matters is not belonging to the </span><i>physical </i><span>seed demarcated by circumcision and Torah-keeping as the bearers of the promise, but rather the worldwide "seed" who would be the actual </span><i>fulfillment</i><span> of God's covenant promises to Abraham in and through the work of the physical seed's Messiah, Jesus.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">To do this, Paul must, as </span><span style="font-family: times;">he did when confronting his Jewish-Christian adversaries in Galatia, </span><span style="font-family: times;">deal with the apparent problem that Genesis 17 itself speaks of the covenant as being both "in [Abraham's] flesh" and "everlasting" in duration (</span><span style="font-family: times;">Genesis 17:10-11, 13-14). So, i</span><span style="font-family: times;">n verses 9-12, the apostle appears to attempt an end run around this not insignificant difficulty by pointing to the simple matter of <i>chronology</i>: Abraham was credited with "righteousness" while still in an uncircumcised state. In other words, since Genesis 15 occurred before Genesis 17, the "faith" through which this righteousness was credited to his account in the earlier text must be the mark of the Abrahamic family <i>instead of</i> the sign of circumcision, which he then demotes to the lesser status of being the "seal" (<i>sphragis</i>) of the "righteousness of faith" with which he had been credited (4:11). [5] </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>What goes unsaid, and what likewise lies behind his earlier, concentrated scriptural argumentation in Galatians 3, is the fact that Paul has―rather shockingly for a trained rabbinic scholar―driven a proverbial wedge between the Abrahamic Covenant and the (later) Mosaic Covenant, thereby categorically denying the latter any positive, let alone definitive, role in salvation-history (cf. Galatians 3:15-25). Whereas the Torah was given, at least in theory, to be the badge of the covenant people as the bearers of the promise and means whereby they would live within the covenant and thus fulfill their priestly role </span><i>vis-à-vis</i><span> the nations, in Paul's view it fills that role no longer. Abrahamic heirship, in the sense in which Paul has redefined the concept, cannot come "through the Law" (Rom 4:13).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">Why is this so? And how had Paul come to this (shocking) conclusion? Here it is helpful to note E. P. Sanders's distinction between <i>arguments</i> used to justify a position, and the <i>real reasons</i> that lay behind those arguments. [6] Surely the catalysts for Paul's mature theological thoughts in this matter were, first, <i>his own conversion experience</i>, when a flash of blinding light on the Damascus Road showed him that his "faultless" (<i>amemptos</i>) "righteousness in the Law" was all so much <i>skybala</i> fit for the dung heap (Philippians 3:6) [7]; and second, to <i>his experience in the Gentile mission</i>, when uncircumcised Gentiles, upon placing faith in Christ, received the gift of the eschatological Spirit. The Spirit was, for Paul, proof positive that these Gentile believers had been "justified" by faith and had thereby received the promised "blessing of Abraham" (Galatians 3:1-5, 8, 14). He also understood the Spirit as the fulfillment of the promised circumcised heart (Romans 2:25-29) expected for the Jews when the covenant would ultimately be renewed after exile (Deuteronomy 30:1-6). These experiences necessarily caused the apostle to re-examine the Scriptures and thus <i>reinterpret</i> them in keeping with the "facts on the ground," as it were.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>Paul indeed does provide a partial rationale for rejecting "works of the Law" as the path to heirship in verses 14-15. In contrast to so much theologizing from certain corners of the "Old Perspective," it is not the fear that law-keeping would lead people to the sinful attempt to secure their position before God and thus boast in their achievements. [8] Nor, contrary to unguarded rhetoric from correspondent corners of the "New Perspective," and even though Paul is at pains to show that Gentiles must gain admittance to the family the same way as Jews, is it the distinctly postmodern concern of cultural imperialism rearing its ugly head to the detriment of the uncircumcised. No. In Paul's own words: "For if (it is only) those 'of the Law' (who) are heirs, faith has been rendered invalid [<i>kekenōtai</i>] and the promise nullified [<i>katērgētai</i>]. For the Law brings about [<i>katergazetai</i>] wrath</span><span>"</span><span> (Rom 4:14-15a, trans. JRM). Here the apostle makes two primary assertions. First, he makes the point, in the words of Ernst Käsemann, that "[t]he promise and faith would be pointless if the law could produce the heirs of Genesis 22." [9] Second, he finds the <i>reason </i></span></span><span>(<i>gar</i>) for this "pointlessness," the reason the promise would be reduced to "a mere dead letter" [10], in a controversial theological deduction based on the incontrovertible facts of Jewish history: </span><i>The Law had its day in the sun</i><span>, </span><i>and it failed</i><span>. As Paul had argued earlier in the letter, all the Law is capable of doing is providing the knowledge of sin when one inevitably fails to keep its demands (Rom 3:19-20). The "Jew's" boast in Torah and of being a light to the Gentiles is, and has consistently been, invalidated by their perpetual Law-breaking (Rom 2:17-24), and the Gentiles' consequent "blasphemy" of God's name on their account (Isaiah 52:5) shows the nation as a whole still to be in the throes of exile as covenant-breakers (Rom 2:24). [11] </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yet Paul's gospel declared that in the Christ event God had, in his "righteousness," <i>already</i> fulfilled his promise to Abraham <i>for the whole world</i> (Rom 3:21-26). Consequently, what <i>now </i>mattered was being a part of Abraham's promised, <i>eschatological </i>multinational family promised to the patriarch in Genesis 15, 17, and 22. Since all people, both Gentiles and Jews, have shown themselves to be "under sin," the <i>means of entrance </i>in this family (<i>via</i> the lawcourt metaphor of "justification") must be the same in both cases; and the <i>badge</i> of covenant membership must be the characteristic trait manifested from the beginning by Abraham himself, namely, faith, so as to ensure that the promise operated on the principle of (a redefined) "grace": "For this reason (the promise) is by faith, in order that it might be according to grace, in order that the promise might be valid for all the seed, not to the one who is 'of the Law' only, but also to the one 'of the faith of Abraham,' who is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16a, trans. JRM [more on this subject in installment 4 in this series]).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This leads us back to Romans 4:2-8, which argues strongly for "faith" as the sole defining family trait and means of entry into this eschatological family. It is to those verses that we will return in our next entry in this series.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[1] See, e.g., James D. G. Dunn, <i>Romans 1-8</i> (WBC 38A; Dallas, Word, 1988) 197.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[2] Paul's reading apparently reflects the LXX of Genesis 15:1: <i>ho misthos sou polys estai sphodra</i>, "Your reward will be very great" (cf. the Samaritan Pentateuch and, among modern English translations, the NRSV). The more ambiguous MT reading focuses on YHWH as the <i>source</i> of his reward. Cf. the NIV rendering: "I am your shield, <i>your very great reward</i>." Abram's response in Genesis 15:2 clearly implies that he understood this "reward" (<i>misthos</i>) in terms of the progeny and inheritance he had been promised earlier in Genesis.</span></p><div><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[3] Hence the strength of Hays's controversial alternative translation of of the syntactically obscure Romans 4:1: "<i>What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham (to be) our forefather according to the flesh?" </i>Richard B. Hays, "Abraham as Father of Jews and Gentiles," in <i>The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture</i> (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008 [1985]), 61-84 (at 67; italics his).</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[4] Cf. N. T. Wright, <i>Paul and the Faithfulness of God</i> (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 897 <i>et passim</i>. As Wright argues, Paul accomplishes this by redefining both the seed and, as we shall see, who the <i>dikaios</i> ("righteous") are and how their "righteousness" is credited to their account.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[5] Douglas Campbell helpfully describes the force of this metaphor: "A seal or stamp marked overtly on an item (or even a person) a state of ownership, possession, or identification, <i>confirming something that was already established on other grounds</i> … The "sign" of the covenant, then, according to Paul, has become a "stamp" signifying the presence of a prior and more fundamental state … which Paul suggests is associated with <i>pistis</i> on the grounds of the earlier situation of promise narrated by Genesis 15:6" (<i>The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul </i>[Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009] 733).</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[6] E. P. Sanders, <i>Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion</i> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 499 <i>et passim</i>.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[7] See also 1 Corinthians 15:8, where he emphasizes his unworthiness to apostleship based on his former persecution of the church by referring to himself as an <i>ektrōma</i>, a prematurely born, dead fetus ("an abortion"); cf. 1 Timothy 1:15.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[8] Thus, famously, Rudolf Bultmann, <i>Theology of the New Testament</i>, 2 vols., trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951-55) 1:197.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[9] Ernst Käsemann, <i>Commentary on Romans</i>, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 120.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[10] Thus Cranfield's rendering of the meaning of the verb <i>katērgētai </i><span>(C. E. B. Cranfield, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans</i>, 2 vols. [ICC: Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79] 1:240).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;">[11] Paul's argument in Galatians 3:10-14 also hinges on the nation's current experience of the covenant curse of exile based on Deuteronomy 28-32, only solved by Jesus Messiah's vicarious bearing of that curse on the cross. Cf. also Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20; 7:7-13.</span></p><p><br /></p></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-25800387112871098892021-07-05T12:58:00.002-07:002021-07-05T19:22:51.941-07:00Frederick Douglass: "What, to the American Slave, is your 4th of July?"<p> </p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqJjF6vlcSbEjeThcDnxg9LPMCxwO8h5DpF5tdSOlg8Ynx7romT64ZsKCqJKa9fs0CJjcanRt6SUIvhgbK9Cf00nXphO_9xjJzP3hOjW8TaWOAG13KRzbWOOwEEmCA1jDMftKbutlflA0/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1149" data-original-width="800" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqJjF6vlcSbEjeThcDnxg9LPMCxwO8h5DpF5tdSOlg8Ynx7romT64ZsKCqJKa9fs0CJjcanRt6SUIvhgbK9Cf00nXphO_9xjJzP3hOjW8TaWOAG13KRzbWOOwEEmCA1jDMftKbutlflA0/w445-h640/image.png" width="445" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Frederick Douglass, circa 1879<br />(National Archives and Records Administration, Public Domain)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Here's Frederick Douglass, 169 years ago today, on 5 July 1852, speaking to the Rochester Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society : </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #3f4239;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? …</i></span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #3f4239;">What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.</span><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #3f4239;"> </span> </span></i></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In his address, Douglass takes special aim at the Fugitive Slave Act, enacted on 18 September 1850 as part of the Compromise of 1850, which required slaves to be returned to their owners even if they had escaped to free states. In particular, he derides those "Divines" or theologians who defended, not only the law, but the institution of slavery as well:*</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: #fefefe; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3f4239; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.004) 1px 1px 1px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.</i></span></p><p style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: #fefefe; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3f4239; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.004) 1px 1px 1px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance, and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness. Did this law concern the “<span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;">mint, anise, and cumin</span>” — abridge the right to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion, it would be smitten by the thunder of a thousand pulpits. A general shout would go up from the church, demanding <span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;">repeal, repeal, instant repeal</span>! — And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner. Further, if this demand were not complied with, another Scotland would be added to the history of religious liberty, and the stern old Covenanters would be thrown into the shade. A John Knox would be seen at every church door, and heard from every pulpit, and Fillmore would have no more quarter than was shown by Knox, to the beautiful, but treacherous queen Mary of Scotland. The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and <span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;">not</span> a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of <span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;">mint</span>, <span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;">anise</span>, and <span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;">cumin</span>, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.”</i></span></p><p style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: #fefefe; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3f4239; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.004) 1px 1px 1px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #3f4239;">For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, </span><span style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #3f4239; line-height: inherit;">as preached by those Divines</span><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #3f4239;">! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!</span> </i></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">(Read the entire speech <a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/">here</a>.)</span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Years ago I wrote a piece, based on the Apostle Paul's paraenesis in Romans 13, entitled <a href="https://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-i-dont-celebrate-fourth-of-july.html?showComment=1498347276044">"Why I Don't Celebrate the Fourth of July"</a>. I still stand by what I wrote then (where the rubber hits the road: working <i>within</i> the system to rectify wrongs and, if necessary, <i>nonviolent </i>civil disobedience, yes; armed revolution, no). Nevertheless, one would be perverse to deny the power of Thomas Jefferson's exalted rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence, adopted in Philadelphia on 4 July 1776, to the effect that <span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I am proud to be an American because of this very ideological commitment, which has benefitted the world more than any words of mine could adequately convey. Nevertheless …</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem then, </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">as now</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">, is that these great words were not applied to people across the board. African slaves and the millions of indigenous Americans living on the Continent were not afforded these rights. What pangs of conscience many of the founders felt about this hypocrisy were conveniently suppressed, only to be alleviated more than 80 years later by the horrors and bloodshed of the Civil War. Even then, it wasn't until 1964―during my own lifetime!―that racial, religious, and sexual discrimination were finally proscribed </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">legally</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> in my country. And yet, as anybody with eyes to see recognizes, systemic injustice continues to exist, denied only by those for whom such denial is politically, socially, and/or economically convenient.** Matters have not been helped by the so-called "conservative" majority of the Supreme Court, who eviscerated the 1965 Voting Rights Act with their unconscionable, and legally dubious, </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Shelby County v. Holder </i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">decision in 2013, and did even more damage to the Law by upholding Arizona's freshly-minted voter restrictions in last week's party-line </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Brnovich v. Democratic National </i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>Committee</i> decision. All people's votes are equal according to the law, but it is more than apparent that some people's votes are more equal than others.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">I write this, not (entirely) to be contrary, but rather to hammer home the illegitimacy of a certain right-wing view of what "patriotism" entails. Patriotism is not to be confused with "Nationalism," which, in its blind adherence to a mythical narrative of American righteousness and faith in some hazily defined and unhistorical notion of American "exceptionalism," amounts to little more than a form of low-rent idolatry. By contrast, "Patriotism," rightly understood, entails both pride in the nation's ostensible values <i>as well as criticism of it when it fails to live up to those ideals</i>, in hope of goading it to repentance and faithfulness to those ideals.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course, not all see it that way. I am 64 years old, and I well remember the outcry over John Carlos' and Tommie Smith's black power salutes on the Olympic Medal platform at Mexico City in 1968 (with the approval of Australia's silver medal-winning Peter Norman). I remember the criticism Vietnam protesters received from Nixon supporters over their opposition to a war America should never have prosecuted ("America: Love it or Leave it;" alas, Mike Stivic's lectures to Archie Bunker in Norman Lear's <i>All in the Family</i> should have nipped this hollow criticism in the bud). More recently, I am flabbergasted with the abuse and blacklisting of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for his kneeling during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner before games to highlight the continued racism in American</span> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">society (i.e., America's <i>not</i> living up to its stated ideals; <i>t</i></span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">he</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> question left unanswered, of course, is this: Why is the anthem even played before games? How is it even remotely relevant?). Most recently, the same faux "outrage" and criticism was leveled against American hammer thrower Gwen Berry for turning away from the flag after her 3rd place finish in the recent 2021 Olympic trials (For her "sin," Texas―where else?―congressman Dan Crenshaw wants her kicked off the team).</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #050505; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">More insidiously, manufactured "conservative" outrage over "Critical Race Theory" and the <i>New York Times's</i> "1619 Project"―not to mention hilariously wrong-headed reactions such as Donald Trump's "1776 Commission" and Texas's "1836 Project"―manifest a willingness to double down on whitewashed mythology when genuine American <i>history</i> proves too uncomfortable. Such "conservative" snowflakes, in the words of Jack Nicholson's Col. Jessup in <i>A Few Good Men</i>, "can't handle the truth."</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #050505; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">But here's the point: </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Both verbal and symbolic criticism of America's shortcomings do not evince a dearth of patriotism. Criticism of American hypocrisy and failures does not equal "hatred" of America. What such criticism demonstrates is that the critic </i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">believes in American ideals</span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> and is calling the nation to faithfulness to their stated ideological commitments.***</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> In other words, such criticism is, in point of fact</span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">, evidence of the </i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">presence,</span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> rather than the </i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">lack, </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">of patriotism</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">. And it is, at the very least, bad form for men and women, who are the beneficiaries of both the acknowledged and unacknowledged privilege our country affords to white people, to condemn minority populations for their criticism of the country for reneging on its promise of "liberty and justice for all." After all, such "liberty and justice" are what they are entitled to. Moreover, the very constitution such "conservatives" claim to love guarantees the right of these people to air these criticisms. And that's nothing more than the great Frederick Douglass, on explicitly </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Christian</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> grounds, did in his speech 169 years ago. "Liberty and justice for all." That's what America stands for. Here's to hoping that it will make strides in this direction in this, its 246th year.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">*Alas, defense of slavery and sympathy for the Confederacy that championed it did not die out among theologians with the loss of the Civil War, or even the 19th century when the institution was overturned. Most disappointing to me was the Highland Scot John Murray, perhaps the greatest Presbyterian theologian of the 20th century after Benjamin Warfield. In his 1957 book of lectures entitled </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Principles of Conduct</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">, Murray argued that the Bible endorsed the institution, lamely defining slavery as the property of one man in the <i>labor</i> of another, ignoring the quite obvious fact that slavery, </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">by definition</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">, involves the ownership of the </span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;">person</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> as well as the person's labor. This was true, not only in American chattel slavery, but in the more variegated institution encountered by Paul in the Roman Empire as well. Cf. Murray, <i>Principles</i></span><i style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics</i><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 93-102.</span></span></span><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">**Years ago, my brother and I made a pilgrimage to the boyhood home of our basketball hero, Wilt Chamberlain, in the working class and almost entirely African American Haddington section of West Philadelphia. Driving back to the Main Line, we passed over City Avenue into Lower Merion Township on Haverford Road, a mere 2 miles away, where the large homes on tree-lined streets of almost entirely white households dominated the landscape. This, to me, was as illuminating as any academic treatise. What was it that caused the glaring disparity? The answer was obvious, obscure only to those for whom such obtuseness is existentially convenient.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">***For Christians who deem the Bible to be their supreme authority (derived, of course, from God, who we believe inspired it), consider the role of the prophets, from Moses to Elijah to Amos to Isaiah to Jeremiah and Ezekiel to John the Baptizer and Jesus himself. Did their sometimes harsh words and symbolic acts pointing to Israel's covenant unfaithfulness mean that they "hated" the nation or its people? No answer is required. Such prophetic calls are in the service of <i>enforcing covenant commitments</i>. It takes no great leap of the imagination to understand verbal and symbolic calls for equality and justice in America today as analogous to these biblical prophetic voices.</span></span></span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-45541484440383560422021-07-02T06:59:00.001-07:002024-01-09T08:57:42.562-08:00The Unimaginable Glory of the Gospel: Romans 4:5 (Part 1)<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Now to a worker, wages are not credited as a gift, but as what is due. But to the person who does not work, yet places trust in the One who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited with righteousness</i> (Romans 4:4-5, trans. JRM)</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>As one raised in an evangelical household by a theologian father, and as one who attended a Lutheran elementary school for grades 1-4, the thought expressed here by Paul the Apostle is ingrained in my theological DNA. "Justification," and hence "salvation," does not come by "works," but only through faith in Christ. All human pretensions to moral achievement must, in the words of the great Lutheran New Testament scholar Ernst Käsemann, be "reduced to dust" in the face of the </span><i>creatio ex nihilo</i><span> of God's action in the gospel. [1] Indeed, the notion that God (only!) "justifies the ungodly" is itself unimaginable good news to one confronted each and every day by his constitutional </span><i>un</i><span>godliness. More than that, this text may be understood as a precis of the apostle's famous theology of "grace." To understand it more fully, one must place it in the flow of Paul's argument in this, his most profound letter.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">"Justification by Faith," the hallmark of the Protestant Reformation, is often understood in terms of what systematic theologians refer to as the <i>ordo salutis</i>, the "order" in which the benefits of Christ's salvific achievement are <i>applied</i> to the believer. Hence, for example, the "effectual call" of the Spirit engenders "faith," which then results in God's declaration of the believer as "righteous" (i.e., justification). That's all well and good, so far as it goes. But the Apostle Paul, both in Romans 3-4 and, earlier, in Galatians 2-3, develops his notion of justification by faith in the context of the <i>historia salutis</i>, how God has worked out his saving purposes <i>in history</i>. To be precise, in these two letters Paul consistently portrays "justification" as the entail of the eschatological fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Traditional Protestant exegesis has tended to portray Romans 1:18-3:20 in terms of an indictment of both Gentiles and Jews <i>as individual sinners</i> who are under sin's dominion and, hence, in need of the message of justification by grace proclaimed in the gospel. </span><span>Of course, these chapters may, not wrongly, be </span><i>used</i><span> to convey this message. But the text, </span><i>as Paul wrote and intended it</i><span>, goes far deeper than this. Indeed, rhetorical analysis shows that the true target of his argument in this passage are his fellow "Jews" (Rom 2:17), existentially secure in their possession of, and performance of, the Torah as the charter of the covenant ("works of the Law," Rom 3:20), and hence confident of their superiority to the </span><span>Gentiles, characterized by their </span><span>"godlessness" (</span><i>asebeia</i><span>) and "unrighteousness" (</span><i>adikia</i><span>) (Rom 1:18), to whom they presume themselves to be "teachers" and "guides" (Rom 2:18-20). Whereas, in point of fact, their failure to perform the Torah in which they boast causes these benighted Gentiles to "blaspheme" God's name on their account (Isaiah 52:5, quoted in Rom 2:24), implying they were still under the covenant curse of exile. [2] Indeed, their very "faithlessness" to their covenant obligations (Rom 3:3) provided all the evidence needed to show, as the Scriptures attest, that "all"―</span><i>they </i><span>no less than the Gentiles to whom they felt superior―were under the dominion of "Sin" and, hence, in need of rescue (Rom 3:9-18). [3] God, one might suppose, was on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, his "righteousness" demands that he show no favoritism and must, therefore, judge sin on the facts of the case (Rom 2:1-16). On the other, he has made promises to the Jews, and his righteousness likewise demands that he remain faithful to those promises (Rom 3:3-4). The "solution" to this dilemma, the means by which God's moral integrity [4] is maintained, is found in the "now-time" (</span><i>nyni de</i><span>) "manifestation" (</span><i>pephanerōtai</i><span>) or <i>enactment </i>of God's saving covenant "righteousness" in the atoning death of Christ, as a consequence of which he </span><i>justly</i><span> "justifies" Jew and Gentile sinners alike by his grace through their faith in Christ (Rom 3:21-26). [5]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This argument would have shocked most Second Temple Jews, no doubt like it would surely have confused the erstwhile Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus. Had not God chosen the people of Israel and made covenant with them? How, then, could he demolish the "distinction" (<i>diastolē</i>, Rom 3:22) between Jew and Gentile simply on the basis that all, as everyone acknowledges, "have sinned" (<i>hēmarton</i>, Rom 3:23)? Wouldn't the "biblical" solution be the one put forward in Deuteronomy 30:1-6, where God would rescue the people from exile and "circumcise their hearts" if and when they themselves turned back in repentance to follow the Law? [6] Indeed, such a worldview lay behind the zeal of so many of the Jews of Paul's day to perform what he terms "the works of the Law" (<i>erga nomou</i>). So Paul heads off this potential objection right away by asking, "Where, then, is boasting?" and immediately and categorically excluding such "boasting" from consideration (Rom 3:27). This, contrary to long-pedigreed Protestant assumptions, is not the classic boast of the Pelagian moralist who seeks to establish his or her standing before God on the basis of moral achievements. [7] It is, rather, the Jewish boast of <i>covenantal privilege </i>over against the Gentiles (cf. Rom 2:17). [8] Indeed, the little word "or" (<i>ē</i>) that introduces Romans 3:29 ("<i>Or</i> is God the God of the Jews only?") suggests quite clearly that "justification by works of the Law" would, <i>by definition</i>, limit justification to the Jews, who alone possessed the Law so as to be able to perform these distinctively <i>Jewish </i>practices. [9] For Paul, this potential Jewish boast is precluded by what he ironically terms "the law of faith" (<i>nomos pisteōs</i>)―the Torah, in other words, <span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">understood through the narratival hermeneutical grid laid bare in the apostle's recounting of the Abraham story which he provides in Romans 4. [10] Indeed, this "law of faith" expresses the manner in which Paul's gospel of "justification by faith" for Jew and Gentile alike "upholds" (<i>histanō</i>) the Torah (Romans 3:31). [11]</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: medium;">To validate this assertion, Paul turns, as he had done a few years earlier in Galatians 2, to the story of Abram/Abraham in Genesis 15, in particular the so-called "prooftext" of Genesis 15:6:</span></span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: medium;"><i>Abraham trusted in God, and it was credited to his account as righteousness</i> (Romans 4:3, trans. JRM)</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: medium;">Traditional Protestant exegesis has, of course, looked at this as a "scriptural proof" or biblical "illustration" of the doctrine of justification by faith [12] On this reading, the Jews were mistaken in presuming that they could establish their position before God by performing the Law; on the contrary, as per this reading, Paul argues that "justification" has <i>always </i>been by faith (even if the <i>content </i>of that faith had changed over the course of salvation-history), and he goes to the story in Genesis about Abraham's faith and justification to "prove" this.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">Such an understanding, however, runs into insurmountable difficulties, not least of which is the fact that the very clause used by Paul with reference to Abraham's prototypical justification ("it was credited to his account as righteousness;" LXX <i>elogisthē autōi eis dikaiosyn</i></span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ēn</i><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">) is used also of Phinehas in Psalm 106 (LXX 105):31―the very Phinehas whose "zeal" for the Law led him to run a spear through Zimri and his Midianite lover, Cozbi, thereby propitiating YHWH's wrath against the people for their worship of Baal of Peor and stemming the plague he had sent in response to their idolatry (Numbers 25). Just as Abraham's "crediting with righteousness" [13] was concretized, as it were, by God's entering into a covenant with him (Genesis 15:18), so God made a "covenant of peace" with Phinehas, according to which his descendants would constitute a lasting priesthood (Numbers 25:12-13).</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">No. The reason Paul cites the example of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 is <i>not</i> because he sees the patriarch as a prime early example of a timeless or <i>trans</i>-temporal doctrine of justification by faith. Rather, it is because Abraham is not only the father of Israel; he is, more fundamentally, the one who, <i>via </i>the unconditional covenant promises given to him in Genesis 12, 15, 17, and 22, was chosen by God to </span></span><span style="font-family: times;">to rescue the world from its primeval apostasy</span><span style="font-family: times;">―"sin," both in its vertical (Genesis 3) and horizontal (Genesis 11) dimensions. It is <i>these</i> promises to which Paul sees God being faithful in the powerful manifestation of his saving "righteousness" in the Christ event (Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">In this light, Paul understood the "reckoning with righteousness" in response to Abram's faith as an adumbration of his own Law-free gospel to the Gentiles, in which Jews and Gentiles alike―<i>and together!</i>―would experience the worldwide blessing promised him in Genesis 12:1-3. [14] What mattered then, as it matters now, is belonging to the family of Abraham, the family that experiences the blessings of God's covenant with the patriarch. The questions that demand answers, of course, are, first, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">Who belongs to this family of Abraham?</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> and second, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">How does one come to belong in it</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">? The Jews, at least those in the scope of Paul's argument here in Romans, were comfortable in, and </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">confident because of</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">, their election, their covenanted identity as children of Abraham "according to the flesh" (</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">kata sarka</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">, Rom 4:1). [15] Because of their physical descent from Abraham and, more importantly, their </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">covenantal</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> identity marked by circumcision (Genesis 17:11-14; note verse 13b: "So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant"), they saw their performance of "works of the Law," not as the means whereby they might <i>establish</i> their position before God, but rather as the means of living within the covenant and marking them as the ones who would be vindicated when God finally acted in his righteousness to establish the kingdom. [16] Paul, however, detected another familial identity, one that took primacy, in God's later covenant promise that Abraham would be "a father of many nations" (Genesis 17:5). [17] </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">This </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">family would be a family of faith, a worldwide and multi-ethnic family of people, both uncircumcised </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">and </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">circumcised, who walk in Abraham's footsteps and wear the emblem of faith (Rom 4:11-12, 16-18).</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The key to understanding Romans 4 is to recognize that the chapter is meant to be a scriptural validation of Paul's two major assertions found in Romans 3:27-31. [18] First, justification is by faith, not the Jewish "works of the Torah" (vv. 27-28). Second, the monotheism of the Shema demands that Jews and Gentiles be justified on the same basis and in the same way (vv. 29-30). Paul deals with the first in 4:2-8 and the second in 4:9-18 [19]. What unites these two emphases, as we will ultimately see, is their foundation in God's sovereign, unconditioned, and unspeakably glorious grace. In our next installment, we will turn to verses 9-18 and discuss why it is that faith, and not "works of the Law," is the badge of Abraham's family.</span></span></p><p><br /></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><span style="font-family: times;">[1] Ernst Käsemann, "The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4," in <i>Pauline Perspectives</i>, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 79-101 (90). This perspective is elaborated brilliantly and in detail in Käsemann's <i>Commentary on Romans</i>, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 105-29.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[2] "The problem for Paul is that what they take pride in turns out to produce not glory but shame (shame <i>on</i> God, 2:23-24)." (<span style="color: #222222;">John M. G. Barclay, </span><i style="color: #222222;">Paul and the Gift</i><span style="color: #222222;"> [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015] 469).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[3] For fuller discussion along these lines, see my previous post from 2012 at http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-7-romans-321-26.html.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">[4] Cf. Leander Keck, <i>Paul and His Letters</i> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979<span>) 117-20; Richard B. Hays, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">“Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">JBL</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> 99 (1980) 107-15 (reprinted as "Psalm 143 as Testimony to the Righteousness of God," in <i>The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture</i> [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1980] 50-60); cf. also Anthony C. Thiselton, <i>The Hermeneutics of Doctrine </i>(Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007) 344.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">[5] For a full discussion of these verses, see my post from 2012 at </span><span style="color: #222222;">http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-gospel-part-8-romans-321-26.html.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[6] Not to mention the fact that this call for repentance in view of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God was constitutive of the teaching of both John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1) and Jesus himself (Mark 1:15).</span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[7] At least, this is not the sense intended in the course of the argument Paul is making in Romans 3:27. Of course, such could reasonably be considered a <i>corollary</i> or <i>implication</i> of the text by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> logic.</span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[8] Similarly N. T. Wright, <i>Paul and the Faithfulness of God</i> (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 847, 1000, though he perhaps narrows it too specifically in terms of "the Jewish claim to be the means through which God would rescue the world from its plight." Certainly this would be included, at least with respect to those Second Temple Jews who thought in terms of the ultimate streaming of the nations to Zion. But as Paul's argument unfolds through the end of Romans 4, it is apparent that the issue primarily involves Jewish privilege to be considered the genuine children of Abraham, and what that entailed <i>for their benefit</i>.</span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[9] Cf. Barclay, <i>Paul and the Gift,</i> 567. One need not delimit these "works" to those distinctly Jewish practices that served as "boundary markers" distinguishing Jews from Gentiles, as James D. G. Dunn famously argued; cf. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," <i>BJRL</i> 65 (1983) 95-122 (reprinted in Dunn, <i>The New Perspective on Paul</i>, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008] 99-120). Yet it is essential to view them as "works" that only the Jews, the possessors of the Torah as the revealed will of God, could perform; Gentiles, who did not possess the Law, were thereby rendered, <i>by definition</i>, "sinners" (cf. Galatians 2:15). These are not simply "good works" <i>simpliciter</i>, as many, reading Romans and Galatians anachronistically through the lens provided by (the later) Ephesians 2:8-9, simply assume.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="color: #222222;">[10] The term <i>nomos</i> ("law") is not, despite a long and distinguished pedigree that includes Joseph A. Fitzmyer (<i>Romans</i> [AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1994] 263) and Douglas J. Moo (<i>The Epistle to the Romans</i> (NICNT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge, 1996) 249, to be understood in the weak sense of "principle." </span><span style="color: #222222;">What Paul means by this expression may be discerned by reading Romans 9:30-10:13. Cf., </span><i style="color: #222222;">inter alia</i><span style="color: #222222;">, C. E. B. Cranfield, </span><i style="color: #222222;">A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans</i><span style="color: #222222;">, 2 vols.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-79) 1:219-20; James D. G. Dunn, </span><i style="color: #222222;">Romans 1-8</i><span style="color: #222222;"> (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988) 185-87; N. T. Wright, "The Letter to the Romans," in <i>The New Interpreter's Bible</i>, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 480-81. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[11] Cf. Richard B. Hays, "Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3-4," in <i>Paul and the Mosaic Law </i>(ed. James D. G. Dunn; WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 151-64 (158-63: "The Law Is an Oracular Witness") (reprinted in <i>The Conversion of the Imagination</i>, 85-100 [93-99]).</span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[12] Cf., e.g., Käsemann's heading for 4:1-25: "Scriptural Proof from the Story of Abraham" (<i>Commentary on Romans</i>, 105).</span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times;">[13] Cf. Douglas A. Campbell, <i>The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul </i>(Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009) 732, who translates Genesis 15:6 as "Abraham trusted in God, and it [i.e., his trust] was credited to his advantage with righteousness" (italics removed).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="color: #222222;">[14] Cf. Galatians 3:8, where Paul makes this point explicitly: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith, announced the gospel beforehand to Abraham: '</span><span style="color: #222222;"><i>All the nations will be blessed in you</i>'."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="color: #222222;">[15] The NIV translates Romans 4:1 thus: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter?" In this, it agrees with other standard translations and most commentators that Abraham's "discovery" related to "justification" and consisted of the Genesis narrator's editorial comment that his faith led to "righteousness" being credited to him. The verse, however, is both textually uncertain and ambiguous. The best attested reading, without punctuation, is as follows: <i>Ti oun eroumen heur</i></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ēkenai</i><span style="color: #222222;"><i> 'Abraam ton propatora h</i></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ēm</i><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ōn kata sarka </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">(cf. Bruce M. Metzger, <i>A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament</i> [New York and London: United Bible Societies, 1971] 509)</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">.</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> Years ago Richard Hays, following the almost-forgotten lead of Theodor Zahn (<i>Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer</i> [Leipzig: Deichert, 1910] 212-19, proposed an alternative punctuation in order to bring the question in line formally with other Pauline examples of <i>ti oun eroumen</i> (Rom 3:5; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:30). By thus punctuating the sentence, the subject of the indirect discourse infinitive <i>heurisenai</i> is no longer <i>'Abraam</i>, but rather the implied "we" of the introductory verb <i>eroumen.</i> Hence, "What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham (to be) our forefather according to the flesh?' (cf. Hays, "'Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather According to the Flesh?' A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1," <i>NovT</i> 27 [1985] 76-98 [reprinted as "Abraham as Father of Jews and Gentiles," in <i>The Conversion of the Imagination</i>, 61-84]; followed and modified by N. T. Wright, "Romans and the Theology of Paul," in <i>Pauline Theology</i>, vol. 3: <i>Romans</i>, ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995] 30-67 [at 39-42]; Wright has continued to champion this exegesis in his many subsequent publications; cf., <i>inter alia</i>, "The Letter to the Romans,"<i> </i>487-507; </span>most recently, "Paul and the Patriarch: The Role(s) of Abraham in Galatians and Romans," <i>JSNT</i> 35 [2013] 207-41 [at 225-29] [reprinted in <i>Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978-2013</i> {Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013} 554-91 {at 579-82}]<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">). This alternative reading is not without its difficulties, but it does solve the problems, first, of Paul's supposed reference to Abraham as </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">his (predominantly) Gentile readers' "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">forefather according to the flesh," and second, of the curious use of the perfect tense infinitive </span><span style="color: #222222;"><i>heur</i></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ēkenai</i><span style="color: #222222;"><i> </i></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">rather than, as one would expect, the aorist <i>heurein</i>. Most importantly, it points to what Paul is actually doing in Romans 4, to wit, arguing that there are <i>different kinds of Abrahamic descent</i>, one based on physical descent alone (with its attendant covenantal prerogatives), and the other based on possessing the defining family trait of faith, irrespective of ethnic background (so also Galatians 3:6-9).</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: times;">[16] Herein lies the truth in E. P. Sanders's famous definition of Second Temple Judaism as a religion of "covenantal nomism" (<i>Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion</i> [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977]). Sanders has received considerable pushback from certain circles, to an extent rightly so. Not only did Sanders's analysis bring in foreign categories derived from sociological analysis ("Getting in"/"staying in"), he also failed to nuance the different ways the term <i>charis</i> ("gift" or "grace") could be, and <i>was</i>, conceived or, in Barclay's terms, "perfected" in Second Temple Judaism (<i>Paul and the Gift</i>, 194-328). Jews certainly did not imagine they could "earn" their "salvation" by performing the "works of the Law." "Grace" was always prior. But, as we shall see, this does not mean they conceived of "grace" in the same radical way that Paul did.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">[17] Note that in Romans 4:1</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">3 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span>Paul says Abraham was promised that he would be "heir of the world" (</span><i><span>to k</span><span>l</span></i></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ēronomon … kosmou</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">). As we have seen, Abraham was promised that he would be the "father of many nations" (Gen 17:5), and he and his ancestors were promised the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7, 18-21; 17:8). Paul is not alone among Second Temple Jews in extending the land promises globally, not least in the (2nd century BCE?) <i>Book of Jubilees</i> (cf. <i>Jub.</i> 17.3; 22.14; 32.19; other texts in Wright, <i>Paul and the Faithfulness of God</i>, 1005 n.661). See now Esau McCaulley, <i>Sharing in the Son's Inheritance: Davidic Messianism and Paul's Worldwide Interpretation of the Abrahamic Land Promise in Galatians </i>(LNTS 608; London: T. & T. Clark, 2021).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">[18] <i>Contra </i></span>Käsemann, who not surprisingly considers Romans 4 to be the "biblical proof" of <i>3:21-26</i> (<i>Commentary on Romans</i>, 125). Cf. Cranfield, who rightly connects chapter 4 to 3:27-31, but who curiously ignores the controlling significance of verses 29-20: "The function of this section is to confirm the truth of what was said in the first part of 3.27" (<i>Commentary on Romans</i>, 224).</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: times;">[19] Cf. Campbell, <i>The Deliverance of God</i>, 725. Campbell sees 3:27-28 as corresponding to 4:2-8, and 3:29-30 corresponding to 4:9-12. Less convincingly, Campbell suggests Paul expands on 3:31 in 4:13-16a.</span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-72674828802543309442021-06-28T07:22:00.003-07:002021-06-28T21:07:13.532-07:00A Funeral Sermon<p> </p><p align="left" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Teri's
Mom's Memorial Service</span></p>
<p align="left" style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;">
</span><span style="font-style: normal;">17 June 2021</span></span></p>
<p align="left" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">
John Knox Village</span></p>
<p align="left" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">
Orange City, Florida</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></p>
<h2 style="background: transparent; break-before: auto; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><i style="font-weight: normal;">"The
undiscover'd country from whose bourn/ No traveler returns."</i><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> Thus Shakespeare’s Hamlet, </span><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">musing
on death in his famous "To Be or Not To Be" soliloquy. In his
existential desolation over his father’s murder, Hamlet longs for
death as a </span><i style="font-weight: normal;">"consummation/Devoutly
to be wish'd." </i><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">But he had a problem: death is the great unknown. Would there be
damning consequences if he took his own life? So Hamlet laments,
</span><i style="font-weight: normal;">"Conscience
doth make cowards of us all</i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.<i>"</i></span></span><i style="font-weight: normal;"> </i><span style="font-weight: normal;">[1]</span><i style="font-weight: normal;"> </i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Shakespeare’s matchless literary creation
reminds us of one nasty fact: </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">Death is the Great Equalizer. </span><i style="font-weight: normal;">All
of us―great
or small, prince or pauper, accomplished or pedestrian―must,
sooner or later, come to terms with death</i><span style="font-weight: normal;">. What matters is </span><i style="font-weight: normal;">how</i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
we come to terms with it.</span></span></h2><p style="background: transparent; break-before: auto; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></p>
<h2 style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> For
Christians, it's all too common to fall back into a Platonic
pattern of thinking in which the "real person" is one’s soul. In this way of thinking, our mortal body is, by implication, merely tangential to our soul and not a necessary, </span><i>defining</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
component of our identity. Even in cases, like Irene's,
when death has come after a long and fruitful life, the temptation is
to take comfort in the notion that she has now reunited with her
parents with Jesus in heaven, and to leave it at that. Now I don't want to downplay the
sliver of truth found in such comforting thoughts. After all, the Apostle Paul
</span><span><i>does </i></span><span style="font-style: normal;">say, in words etched on my own father’s grave marker, that at
death a Christian, though "absent from the body," is "present
with the Lord." [2] And hence we can surely rejoice in
the knowledge that Irene is now with her Lord.</span></span></span></h2><h2 style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> Upon
reflection, however, simply focusing on this as if it were the whole
story is both unsatisfying and unbiblical. For in the Bible death
is portrayed as an </span><i>interloper</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
disrupting God’s designs for his good creation. As such death is
</span><i>always</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> worthy of
grief, just as Jesus himself wept over the demise of his friend
Lazarus. [3] Death, from this point of view, must be
</span><i>defeated</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. It must be
</span><i>destroyed</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. It must be
</span><i>abolished</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. And God is
not one to do deals or make compromises. Make no mistake, leaving the
body in the grave while the “real person” resides in
“heaven” would be a compromise of the first order.</span></span></span></h2><h2 style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
Apostle Paul, as a trained biblical scholar, knew this. He knew, and
made central to his thought, G</span><span style="font-style: normal;">od’s</span><span style="font-style: normal;">
promise of a </span><i>new
creation</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.
He knew, from Psalm 102:27, that God had no intention to abandon what
he had created; rather, God intended ultimately to </span><i>exchange</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> this old creation for a </span><span><i>new </i></span><span style="font-style: normal;">one like a simple change of clothing. Paul knew
the implications of this hope for God’s </span><i>people</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
as well. In Isaiah 25, the prophet wrote:</span></span></span></h2>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><i><span> <span> </span></span>On
this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples</i></span></p><p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> a
feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,</span></i></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> </span><span> <span> </span></span>of
rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. </i>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> <span> </span></span>And
he will swallow up on this mountain </i>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> <span> </span><span> </span></span>the
covering that is cast over all peoples, </i>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> <span> </span><span> </span></span>the
veil that is spread over all nations. </i>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> <span> </span></span>He
will swallow up death forever; </i>
</span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> <span> </span></span>and
the LORD God will wipe away tears from all faces. </i>[4]</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> </span></p></blockquote></blockquote>
<h2 style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">This
promised "swallowing up" of death has one necessary entailment,
as the prophet proclaims in the very next chapter:</span></h2><p style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><i><span> </span><span> </span></i><i>Your
dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.</i></span></p>
<p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>You
who dwell in dust, awake and sing for joy! </i>[5]</span></p><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">Paul
understood this scriptural logic clearly. This is evident, above all,
in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, where he argues, in great detail, that
<i>resurrection is a necessary component of the Christian
gospel</i>. The climax of his
argument in this chapter comes in verses 50-58:</span></h2><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times;"><i>I
tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I
tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must
put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on
immortality. </i>When<i> the
perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on
immortality</i>, then<i>
shall come to pass the saying that is written: </i></span><span style="font-family: times;"><i>"Death
is swallowed up in victory." </i>[6]</span></span></h2></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">"<span><i>O
death, where is your victory?</i></span></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i> O
death, where is your sting?" </i>[7]</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;">
</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h2 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><i style="font-weight: normal;"> The
sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law. But thanks be
to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your
labor is not in vain.</i></span></h2></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<h2 style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> This
is a spectacular passage, not least because of what, perhaps
surprisingly to many, the Apostle says about resurrection. Resurrection, Paul makes crystal clear, is not the mere resuscitation or re-animation of a corpse. "Flesh and
blood"―in other words, humanity as it is <i><span>now</span> </i>composed:
ephemeral, weak, perishable―<i>by</i><i style="font-style: normal;"> </i><i><span>definition</span> </i>cannot come into
possession of the kingdom of God, that final state of affairs when,
as Paul writes in verses 27-28, death will have finally been defeated
and God will be "all in all." What is <i style="font-style: normal;">needed</i>, and what therefore will be
<i style="font-style: normal;">given</i> when Christ returns, is <i>transformation</i>. [8] And this transformation will happen, Paul says, <i>instantly</i><i style="font-style: normal;">―</i>in the blink of an
eye, as it were. The dead will be raised “incorruptible,” without
degenerating decay. [9] And "we"―that is, those still alive when
Christ returns―will be “changed,” just like the heavens and
earth in Psalm 102. At that time, we will not <i><span>lose</span> </i>the bodies we now have. On the
contrary, the <i>bodies we now have</i> will put on new sets of
clothes, clothes that represent a new <i>type </i>of physicality: one that cannot decay,
cannot wear out, and, most importantly, <i><span>cannot</span> <span>die</span></i>. As Paul later wrote in Irene's favorite book, Philippians, Christ, by his sovereign power, "will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." [10] The
resurrection hope, in other words, is the hope for an <i>immortal
</i><i>physicality</i>. It is the hope of the ultimate <i>death of death</i>.</span></span></h2><h2 style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; font-style: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; font-style: normal;"> This
is good news indeed―so good, in fact, that Paul rhetorically
transports himself into that promised future to taunt death, just as
a victorious warrior might mock his defeated foe : "O Death," he says, "where
is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"</span></span></h2><h2 style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; font-style: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> One
question remains, however: On what <i style="font-style: normal;">basis</i> does Paul have this
supreme confidence? Is it, after all, mere wishful thinking? The
apostle provides a clue to the answer in verse 57, where he gives "thanks to God,
who <i style="font-style: normal;">gives</i> us the victory"―present tense, conveying the
certainty of its ultimate eventuality―"through our Lord Jesus
Christ." At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul quotes a pithy, two-part, traditional summary of the Christian gospel: "The Messiah died for
our sins according to the Scriptures;" and "he was raised the
third day according to the Scriptures." [11] Indeed, Paul’s entire
argument for resurrection hangs on the historical occurrence and theological significance of <i>Christ's
</i>own resurrection. For Paul, the
resurrection of Jesus was not some strange, isolated occurrence that
somehow "proved" he was "God." No. Jesus' resurrection was, as
Paul says in verse 23 of 1 Corinthians 15, the "firstfruits," in other words, <i>the
guarantee and the model of the ultimate resurrection of all
his people</i><i style="font-style: normal;">.</i> Meanwhile, sin―death's poison-filled stinger that
facilitates its lethal dominion―has been dealt with and was, as Paul later says in Romans, "condemned" on the cross. [12] <i>Sin's
venom, in other words, was absorbed by Christ for the benefit of his
people</i>. [13] With its poison thus drained, death’s formerly lethal
sting is made, in ultimate terms, harmless. Death, in other words,
has been rendered <i>stingless</i>. It holds no terror, for those who
sleep in the Lord do so in the <i><span>certainty</span> </i>of their future
resurrection.</span></span></h2><h2 style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> Over
the past couple of weeks, I have thought often of my mother-in-law
Irene. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">I have perused some
old photographs, dating back to her youth back in Pennsylvania.
Memories flooded back of all of the trips Teri and I have made over
the past 4 decades to Jersey, PA, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Florida, not to mention the cruise to the Bahamas the family took to
welcome the new millennium. I will remember </span><span style="font-style: normal;">long
and interesting </span><span style="font-style: normal;">conversations
</span><span style="font-style: normal;">with her</span><span style="font-style: normal;">,
her cooking, her unfailing hospitality … and, most of all, her genuine love for
the Lord. The thought of not seeing her again in this life brings a
certain melancholy. Death, you see, remains a tragedy. But this
melancholy we feel is tempered in the faith that death’s stinger has
been disabled. We who are in Christ </span><i>will</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
see Irene again, and for that we can be forever grateful to our Lord
and Savior for his victory over sin and death.</span></span></span></h2><h2 style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-right: -0.06in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> So,
rest in peace, our dear Irene, "in sure and certain hope of the
resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ." [14] To
God alone be the glory.</span></span></h2><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a name='more'></a></span></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium; font-weight: normal;">[1] Shakespeare, </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><i style="font-family: times;">Hamlet</i><span style="font-family: times;"> 3.1.79-80, 63-64, 83</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[2] 2 Corinthians 5:8<br /></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[3] John 11:33-35<br /></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[4] Isaiah 25:7-8<br /></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[5] Isaiah 26:19a<br /></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[6] Isaiah 25:8 (Aquila, Theodotion)<br /></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[7] Hosea 13:14</span></span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[8] Cf. Raymond F. Collins, <i>First Corinthians</i> (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, Minn.: Glazier/Liturgical, 1999) 573-74</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[9] Anthony C. Thiselton, <i>The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text </i>(NIGTC; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000) 1297</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[10] Philippians 3:21</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[11] 1 Corinthians 15:3-4</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[12] Romans 8:3</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[13] Cf. Thiselton, 1300</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">[14] <i>Book of Common Prayer</i> (Church of England), The Order for the Burial of the Dead</span></span></div>
James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-46208285580819454382021-06-11T07:49:00.005-07:002021-06-11T12:01:43.920-07:00Cairn University Drops Its Social Work Program: "Critical Theory" and "Intersectionality" the Culprits?<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My tiny undergraduate alma mater, Cairn University, in the Bucks County Philadelphia suburbs, made the national news recently, and not for the best of reasons. On May 24, President Todd Williams announced that the university would drop its Social Work program, which has been an important part of the school's identity and mission for more than 50 years, back to when it was still located at 18th and Arch Streets in Center City and called Philadelphia College of Bible. News of this decision made its way to the august pages of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/christian-college-ends-program-citing-gender-sex-guidelines/2021/06/04/04ff67d6-c565-11eb-89a4-b7ae22aa193e_story.html"><i>The Washington Post</i></a>, and from there to multiple Twitter feeds, such as those of Philadelphia-based Christian activist/author <a href="https://twitter.com/ShaneClaiborne/status/1401001309814378508">Shane Claiborne</a>, Butler University New Testament scholar <a href="https://twitter.com/ReligionProf">James McGrath</a>, and University of Michigan Ph.D. candidate <a href="https://twitter.com/GarrettPace1/status/1401394469203632138">Garrett Pace</a> (the thread here is particularly interesting). In response, the National Association of Social Workers and its Pennsylvania chapter <a href="https://www.socialworkers.org/News/News-Releases/ID/2322/NASW-and-its-Pennsylvania-Chapter-urge-Cairn-University-reopen-social-work-program">urged the school to reconsider</a> its decision, poignantly including pleas from past and current students of the highly-regarded program.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Now, I have no doubt the reasoning behind the decision to close the program was complex, including, as was later clarified, funding and enrollment concerns. Times have been rough for small, private colleges and universities, and the past year's COVID epidemic hasn't helped matters. But this can hardly have been the main reason, considering that just this spring the school's new MSW program <a href="https://lowerbuckstimes.com/2021/03/25/cairns-master-of-social-work-reaches-candidacy-for-accreditation/">achieved </a><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://lowerbuckstimes.com/2021/03/25/cairns-master-of-social-work-reaches-candidacy-for-accreditation/">candidacy for accreditation by the Council of Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation</a>. Indeed, my own 50+ years of experience with fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity suggests that Williams himself articulated the <i>real</i> reason. The issue concerned the most recent draft of the CSWE's required institutional criteria for accreditation (you can read the entire draft <a href="https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Information/2022-EPAS/EPAS-2022-Draft-1-April-2021-(2).pdf.aspx">here</a>). In Williams's words: </span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="background-color: white;">The draft … </span><span style="background-color: white;">embraces a social and cultural agenda that now includes the acceptance of a view of human sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression that is inconsistent with the University’s biblical position on human sexuality</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">… </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">if approved, institutions will be required to align with the values and purposes of the profession that are outlined in the document as being built upon a set of critical theory and intersectionality assumptions and values inconsistent with our biblical view of humanity, human nature, and the world.</span></i></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">Having read the document, I assume the "offending" passages are to found on pages 10-11, which detail educational policy and curriculum related to "</span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI):"</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Programs provide the context through which students learn about their positionality, power,
privilege, and difference, and develop a commitment to dismantling systems of oppression, such as racism,
that affect diverse populations. Programs recognize the pervasive impact of white supremacy/superiority (and
its ensuing privilege) and prepare students to have the knowledge, awareness, and skills necessary to engage
in anti-racist practice. The dimensions of diversity, equity and inclusion are understood as the intersectionality
of multiple factors including but not limited to age, caste, class, color, culture, disability and ability, ethnicity,
gender, gender identity and expression, generational status, immigration status, legal status, marital status,
political ideology, race, nationality, religion/spirituality, sex, sexual orientation, and tribal sovereign status.
Faculty and administrators model anti-racist practice and respect for diversity and difference.</i></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>A detailed response would take me too far afield. But permit me the following. First, "concerns" over LGBTQ+ issues are nothing new in the evangelical world. But this doesn't have a necessary connection to a Christian's role and duty as a social worker. The job of a social worker, especially in cases where family conflict, exclusion and, yes, oppression (more on this presently) is involved is NOT to be a prophet or preacher, proclaiming the sins of, and ultimate judgment of God on, the oppressed </span><span style="background-color: white;">…</span><span style="background-color: white;"> or, what is worse, refusing to help such a person because of their perceived or actual sins.</span><span> Indeed, no matter what the Christian social worker's theological view on such matters―wrong or right!―his or her job is to act towards them based on </span><i>love</i><span>, indeed to show </span><i>Christ's</i><span> love to that person, always keeping in mind one's own failures, foibles, and sins that, were it not for God's unconditioned, amazing grace, they would, as the Apostle Paul would say, still be "in" (1 Cor 15:17). Discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people remains a serious matter, and it is one Christians must not avoid. These are people, after all, created to be in God's image; hence the fact that they are due "respect" in their difference (as the CSWE's draft says) is, or at least should be, a given. In larger terms, the typical evangelical attitude and stance toward LGBTQ+ people over the years, today no less than in the past, has been a manifestation of the selective moralism that judges those whose "sins" they themselves won't commit, while ignoring (or not even recognizing as sins) those they happily indulge in. A lesson I learned long ago is that, as the crowd chanted at the '68 Democratic Convention in Chicago, "the whole world is watching." And they notice the hypocrisy.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>Much more concerning is Williams's undeveloped accusation of "</span><span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">values … built upon a set of critical theory and intersectionality assumptions </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">…</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"> inconsistent with our biblical view of humanity, human nature, and the world." Leaving aside the common and </span><i style="color: #050505;">prejudicial </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">evangelical use of the adjective "biblical" to denote one's own, traditional view of what the Bible meant and means</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">―any number of faulty schemes can, of course</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">, be passed off as "biblical," such as another one dealing with gender relationships, i.e., "complementarianism;" what matters, of course, is exegesis and hermeneutics</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">―</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">the tossed-off way these words are used suggests, quite strongly, that pressure has been exerted by the most conservative elements of the school's base and/or donors. Indeed, "Critical Race Theory" (one aspect of what Williams describes as "critical theory"; for a helpful, concise summary of CRT from Purdue University, see </span><a href="https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/literary_theory_and_schools_of_criticism/critical_race_theory.html">here</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;">) has become the latest bugbear in conservative circles, political and theological alike (though the distinction between these seems to be hardly defensible any more). From Donald Trump's infamous </span><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf">September memo</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"> to the Office of Management and Budget, to Republican State Legislatures attempting to </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/us/politics/critical-race-theory.html">ban teaching of CRT in schools</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505;"> (Florida, the latest, did so yesterday), conservative politicians certainly view the concept as red meat to their base and kryptonite to their continued political hegemony. (As an aside, as often in politics, in many cases there seems to be an inverse relationship between understanding and condemning the issue).</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #050505;">As a theologian, I am of course more interested in how conservative theologians have taken this criticism up, knee-jerk style, </span><i style="color: #050505;">at the very same time as the SBC kerfuffles over sexism (Beth Moore, Russell Moore) and racism (Moore) have exposed divides and massive moral failures within the largest Protestant denomination in the country.</i><span style="color: #050505;"> Christian parachurch organizations such as</span><i style="color: #050505;"> <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/june/cru-divided-over-emphasis-on-race.html">Cru</a> </i><span style="color: #050505;">and denominations such as the SBC―at least </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/12/23/black-pastors-break-southern-baptist-critical-race-theory/" style="color: #050505;">four black pastors</a><span style="color: #050505;"> resigned following the 30 November 2020 release of a statement from the six SBC seminary presidents condemning CRT―have been divided over the issue. Conservative critiques have come from, </span><i style="color: #050505;">inter alia</i><span style="color: #050505;">, the British church historian </span><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/02/evangelicals-and-race-theory?fbclid=IwAR2EYdQNc2b4tqduO6T1NFTb0EpCN7MOKfBs9hOTQzYRdHapnBsHXFKz5Ng" style="color: #050505;">Carl Trueman</a><span style="color: #050505;"> (for a rebuttal, see </span><a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/scot-mcknight/2021/january/is-critical-race-theory-religion-responding-to-carl-trueman.html" style="color: #050505;">Valerie Hobbs</a><span style="color: #050505;"> at </span><i style="color: #050505;">Jesus Creed</i><span style="color: #050505;">), </span><a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/" style="color: #050505;">Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer</a><span style="color: #050505;"> at the Gospel Coalition, and </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fault-Lines-Movement-Evangelicalisms-Catastrophe/dp/1684511801/ref=sr_1_2?crid=33HKFEZ2CM503&dchild=1&keywords=voddie+baucham+fault+lines&qid=1623349890&s=books&sprefix=voddie%2Caps%2C200&sr=1-2" style="color: #050505;">Voddie Baucham</a><span style="color: #050505;"> in his spanking new book, <i>Fault Lines</i> (for a devastating critique, see Bradly Mason at his blog <a href="https://alsoacarpenter.com/2021/04/21/the-faulty-lines-in-voddie-bauchams-thought-line/">here</a>). For a much more nuanced approach, showing that CRT's concern for justice and condemnation of white supremacy and structural racism have orthodox precedent in the thought of the traditional Black church in America, see the <a href="https://anglicancompass.com/discerning-friends-from-enemies-critical-race-theory-anglicans-in-north-america-and-the-real-crisis/">article</a> in the <i>Anglican Compass</i> by Wheaton New Testament scholar and ACNA Bishop Esau McCaulley (who earned his Ph.D. at St. Andrews under the direction of N. T. Wright).</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I am not interested in defending everything propounded under the guise of CRT. I certainly do not deny sundry problematic elements in the way some of it is framed. But one would need to be blinded by presuppositions not to recognize the truth in its notions of white privilege, systemic racism, and the complications arising from intersectionality. Likewise, consider the argument of Shenvi and Sawyer that the following disjunction necessitates claiming the <i>incompatibility</i> of CRT with biblical orthodoxy:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #272727; font-style: italic;">Or consider the question of our fundamental problem as humans: Is our fundamental problem </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272727;">sin</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #272727; font-style: italic;">, in which case we all equally stand condemned before a holy God? Or is our fundamental problem </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #272727;">oppression</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #272727; font-style: italic;">, in which case members of dominant groups are tainted by guilt in a way that members of subordinate groups are not?</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This is a classic example of what even an introductory-level undergraduate could discern as a false dichotomy, encouraged by the unnecessary use of the adjective "fundamental." Of course, at one level, the "sin" because of which all stand condemned before the bar of God's justice is fundamental to Paul's doctrine of justification. At another level, however, "oppression" is a primary way in which what, in the same letter to the Romans, Paul refers to as "Sin" is manifested in the realm of human societies and relationships; and, as such, it must be acknowledged <i>and fought</i> by Christians who, at the very least, should see it as their mission to implement the priorities of God's kingdom in this already/not yet period of the outworking of God's salvific designs for his world. The issue, in a basic sense, concerns the nature of the gospel. Is it simply the pinched, soterian, individualistic, and often implicitly Platonic/dualistic gospel of 20th century American fundamentalism? Or is it the full-orbed gospel of the Kingdom of God and New Creation articulated on the pages of the New Testament? The latter surely includes the former, but it must not be placed in the former's straightjacket.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Likewise, the related, all-too-common attempt to define "racism" solely in terms of individual attitudes and acts of prejudice, without considering its demonstrable historic and social contours, including structures of oppression that remain hidden and unrecognized by the minds of so many in the privileged group(s), is simply unacceptable. The notion that human social dynamics can and have operated as power structures with both inner and outer aspects ("principalities and powers") was the major focus of the work of the late theologian Walter Wink.* And, I would argue, no greater system of oppression has operated on American soil more persistently than that of systemic racism. And yet all too many Christians―including, alas, those of a Reformed or Calvinist orientation―refuse to acknowledge this or, what is more important, <i>take responsibility for it </i>in any meaningful way.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Ed Blum was perhaps my biggest influence while I was studying for my Th.M. at Dallas Seminary. Ed had two earned doctorates, a Th.D. in New Testament from DTS, and a D.Theol. from Basel in Systematic Theology. He was a notoriously independent thinker, and so I took him for multiple classes: Exegesis of 1 Corinthians, Reformation and Post-Reformation Church History, and an elective on Augustine. He also was a Teaching Elder at the church we attended while living in Dallas. When he spoke, I listened. I can still remember a comment he made in one of his classes: "I see some good in [Karl] Barth. I see some good in [Rudolf] Bultmann." To someone reared and trained in the verities of dispensationalist fundamentalism, this was a shocking statement to hear. But Blum was right. The older I have gotten, I have recognized more and more good in Barth, though I still disagree with him in fundamental ways. The same goes for Bultmann, with whom I disagree even more fundamentally. Indeed, as I used to tell my students, I have learned far more from people with whom I disagree than from those with whom I agree. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This is precisely the attitude Christians should take with regard to CRT. In an interview with Mitchell Atencio at <i>Sojourners </i>(accessed in the <a href="https://currentpub.com/2021/05/01/the-wheaton-college-professor-who-teaches-critical-race-theory/">blog</a> of Messiah University historian John Fea, another Cairn graduate), Wheaton College professor Nathan Cartagena discusses how he uses CRT in his classes. He speaks of "turning philosophical water into theological wine." By this he means:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">That would mean that something like CRT, the movement, is going to be nourishing and life-giving in a way that water is. Then, I want to fit [CRT] in with certain ideas about being made in the image of God, common grace, and general revelation. As we talk about “theological wine,” we are seeing this nourishing “water” as now being in contact with Christ. It’s Christ, a member of the Trinity, that’s taking this up and helping us to see how we can view God’s creation better. CRT scholars are helping us to think through how to move in more decolonial ways and address the church’s egregious history.</span></em></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">That is the way to go, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater for convenience's sake.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The Cairn story is a personal one for me. Not only did I attend there, but my dad taught Bible, Theology, and Greek at the college from 1957 until his death in 1986. He, John Cawood, Mae Stewart, Lin Crowe, and other professors there made a lasting impression on my life. I count as friends some who still serve on the faculty and administration. So I mean it when I say that the news of the school's discontinuing their social work program grieves me. Social work, in my reckoning, is one of the most significant ways Christians can bring the good news of the kingdom to bear on the day-to-day realities of this fractured world, particularly in the city where I was raised and which I still love. So I respectfully ask that President Williams and the Board reconsider their decision.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: times;">*Walter Wink, <i>Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament</i> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); <i>idem</i>, <i>Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That Determine Human Existence</i> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); <i>idem</i>, <i>Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination</i> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992). The fact that these "powers" appear, in the New Testament, to be personal spiritual beings, played down by Wink, does not diminish the power of his insight into how they <i>function</i>.</span><p></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-34331844924665329192021-06-07T08:14:00.001-07:002021-06-07T08:14:09.901-07:00When Doctrines Become Boundary-Marking Shibboleths: Scot McKnight on "Inerrancies"<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Last week, evangelical New Testament scholar Scot McKnight wrote this about the concept of biblical "inerrancy," brouhahas about which crop up from time to time, marked by conservative "gate-keepers" uttering their "concern" about certain theological developments in the academy and in the churches:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It’s not that easy to define a theological construct term like this – the term is not used for the Bible in the Bible – and it is even more difficult to get a group together and reach some kind of consensus …</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">Which is what the </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy </em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">did </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">… </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">Two words are now clearly operative: </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">faithfulness</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;"> and </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">authority</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">. These are the two major implications of the term today and, when the term “inerrancy” is used, the users are usually asserting faithfulness and authority — their own faithfulness, their tribe’s faithfulness, and the authority of the interpretation/idea they are promulgating </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">…</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">Scripture is an </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">all-or-nothing claim</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;"> for inerrantists: if you embrace it all, you’ve got foundations; if not, you lose your footing (eventually). If you think there is one error the entire thing collapses. This notion, which is widespread, is theologically disastrous for many a young adult has walked from the faith when learning that science and the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 are at odds. Choose one, the inerrantists have said over and over. They do, and they walk away </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">…</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">Finally, they agree that it must be </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">interpreted</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">. Plenary doesn’t work without “interpreted.” One can argue that Scripture is true and realize there’s no such thing as as uninterpreted text (Webster). But one could argue the text itself is inerrant apart from any appeal to interpretation. What is increasingly clear to many is that what many claim to be “inerrant” is a theological construct or an interpretation of the text itself, a text that could be interpreted in another way. At which point, the word interpreted gets put into the dock </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">…</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">The impact of the CSBI is a bold affirmation of the </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">authority</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;"> of Scripture and an announcement that it marks off those who are </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">faithful</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;">. This is what inerrancy has come to “mean” – it is a construct that determined who is “in” and who was “out.” That’s the rhetorical edge of this term over and over.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Read the whole piece <a href="https://scotmcknight.substack.com/p/inerrancy-or-inerrancies">here</a>.*</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I grew up and was taught in an environment in which the classic doctrine of biblical "infallibility" was considered insufficiently rigorous. Fuller Seminary founding professor Harold Lindsell wrote his (in)famous <i>The Battle for the Bible</i>** while I was an undergraduate, which I dutifully read when assigned to read it in class. My New Testament mentor, Harold Hoehner, was a board member of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the group responsible for the <i>Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy</i>―included in its entirety in McKnight's article―that serves as the defining standard of the doctrine for the Evangelical Theological Society, of which I have been a member for decades.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I also attended the 2013 Annual Meeting of the ETS at Baltimore, in which the five contributors to the just-released Counterpoints book, <i>Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy***</i>―Al Mohler, Mike Bird, Kevin Vanhoozer, John Franke, and Pete Enns―presented their perspectives in a well-attended plenary session. Tellingly, there was no agreement about the doctrine among the speakers, which should have been a warning sign to all the attendees about the workability or viability of the <i>theologoumenon</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>More than eight years ago―indeed, some nine months before the Baltimore conference―I wrote a <a href="https://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-inerrancy-victimless-crime-ask.html?showComment=1498408754540">post</a>**** in response to the "controversy" over Michael Licona's eminently sensible view of the strange little story found in </span>Matthew 27:52-53 about the emptying of tombs around Jerusalem consequent to the death of Jesus, not to mention his easily demonstrable comments about the nature of the "accuracy" of the Gospels' historical narratives, which conform, as anybody but the most stridently positivistic, foundationalist <i>modernist</i>―because it is fundamentalist doesn't make it any less modernist―readily acknowledges, to the conventions of ancient historiography (sorry, Al Mohler). Today, the dustups seem to be related disproportionately to the increasingly common rejection, by academic evangelicals, of what its proponents call "complementarianism" or, what such usually amounts to, "patriarchalistic hierarchicalism" in gender relationships in the home, the church, and, among the most strident, in society as a whole.***** The most pointed barbs are often directed, sometimes under the guise of "concerns,"****** at so-called "trajectory" or "redemptive movement" hermeneutics, pioneered by my old friend, Bill Webb, which often serves as the hermeneutical foundation for such a reappraisal******* (full disclosure: I find Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic compelling, persuasive, and <i>necessary </i>in articulating both biblical authority <i>per se</i> and its proper <i>contextualization</i> in the 21st century Western world). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What is plainly demonstrable in such "controversies," just like in those that concern the creation narratives in Genesis 1-3, the Genesis Flood narrative, the Old Testament conquest narratives, or any of a host of historical-critical or salvation-historical issues, is that the issue is not biblical inerrancy <i>per se</i>, but rather the <i>interpretation</i> of these sacred texts. What strident hard-liners like Mohler do is tie the concept of biblical "inerrancy" <i>necessarily </i>to their own traditionalist interpretations of those texts; from there it is only a short move to impugn the "faithfulness" of those with whom they disagree. And this is, to be frank, illegitimate as well as bad form.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In my former post, I put forward two propositions that I considered necessary if "inerrancy" was to be considered a viable concept:</span></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>W</i></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-size: medium;">e must always keep in mind that inerrancy and hermeneutics are distinct issues</span></i></span></li><li><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Inerrancy must be gauged in accordance with both authorial intent and the literary and historiographical standards of the ancient world</i></span></i></li></ul><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">These propositions, I maintain, still remain true. Perhaps, however, it is better simply to realize that the term "inerrant," as a negation, is inherently suboptimal; hence it might be helpful to replace the term "inerrancy" in our discourse with positive terms such as "veracity" (Bird), and the descriptor "inerrant" with terms such as "true" (McKnight). As to the matter of scriptural "authority," it would also be helpful to realize, as N. T. Wright reminds us, that the expression "the authority of Scripture" is merely shorthand for "the authority of God <i>exercised through Scripture</i>." ******** The text may indeed be inerrant as an implicate of its inspiration, its "God-breathed" nature (2 Timothy 3:16). But in practical terms, "inerrancy" only applies insofar as one grasps the <i>divine intent</i> in the words of the text. Scripture, it should go without saying, is perfectly capable of conveying the truth God intended through it.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yet tribalism remains, and (unfortunately) will do so. And "inerrancy" is one of the shibboleths used to enforce interpretive boundary markers. In such a situation, McKnight may just be right: "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">For this reason the term is not that helpful. Like the word 'evangelical,' it has had its day in the sun." </span></span></p><p></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span><span></span></p><a name='more'></a>*https://scotmcknight.substack.com/p/inerrancy-or-inerrancies. <p></p><p>**Zondervan, 1976.</p><p>***Zondervan, 2013.</p><p>****https://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-inerrancy-victimless-crime-ask.html?showComment=1498408754540.</p><p>*****E.g., Beth Allison Barr, <i>The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth</i> (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2021).</p><p>******E.g., Brandon Smith, "William Webb's Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: Some Consideration and Concerns," https://cbmw.org/2015/11/16/william-webbs-redemptive-movement-hermeneutic-some-considerations-and-concerns/.</p><p>*******Cf. William J. Webb, <i>Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis</i> (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2001); William J. Webb and Gordon K. Oeste, <i>Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric? Wrestling with Troubling War Texts</i> (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2019).</p><p>********N. T. Wright, <i>Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today</i> (New York: HarperOne, 2011). In an earlier publication Wright fleshes this concept out in Trinitarian terms: "[T]he doctrine called 'authority of scripture' … declares that scripture is the way through which God the Holy Trinity activates, through the Spirit, the authority which the Father has delegated to the Son" ("Reading Paul, Thinking Scripture: 'Atonement' as a Special Study," in <i>Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics</i> [ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008] 59-71 [at 71]).</p><div><span face="Spectral, serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"" style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 19px;"><br /></span></div>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-54080443433251208762021-06-01T07:15:00.000-07:002021-06-01T07:15:31.450-07:00Darrell Bock, Michael Bird, and the "New Perspective on Paul"<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="432" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pYkhOZf_W9s" width="520" youtube-src-id="pYkhOZf_W9s"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The so-called "New Perspective on Paul," given its name by the late James D. G. Dunn in a famous 1983 Rylands lecture at Manchester, was precipitated by E. P. Sanders's 1977 tome, <i>Paul and Palestinian Judaism</i>,* which forced New Testament scholars to (finally) take the literature and, hence, the nature of Second Temple Judaism seriously as a religion which, though "nomistic" in its concern for keeping the Torah, had a covenantal foundation in which law-keeping was the <i>response </i> to God's gracious initiative rather than a "legalistic" striving to "earn" a righteous status before God. The New Perspective, subsequently developed in different ways by scholars such as the aforementioned Dunn and N. T. Wright, also forced scholars to come to grips with the grain of truth in the old argument of William Wrede, articulated in his small 1904 work, <i>Paulus</i>, that "justification by faith" was, for Paul the Apostle, a <i>Kampfeslehre</i> ("polemical doctrine") developed in the context of his Gentile mission and intended to free these converts from the burden of Jewish custom.**</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">By thus switching the focus from "grace <i>versus</i> legalism" to salvation-history and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God, the New Perspective implicitly took aim at what was thereby considered the "old" perspective, namely, the view of Paul developed by Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 16th century and subsequently championed, not only by conservative, confessionalist Protestants in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, but also by the regnant stream of 20th century New Testament scholarship, dominated by Rudolf Bultmann and his successors in German academia, most notably the great Ernst Käsemann.*** Controversy subsequently raged in the academy throughout the decade of the 1990's and then, finally catching up as it were, in both Evangelical and Confessionalist Protestant circles in the decade of the 2000's, culminating in the debate between Wright and Southern Baptist Seminary Professor Tom Schreiner at the 2010 ETS annual conference in Atlanta. We now live in a "post-New Perspective" world in which both "old" and "new" perspectives compete with still other perspectives, not least the so-called "apocalyptic" school associated with such scholars as Douglas Campbell and Martinus de Boer.**** Nevertheless, the issues raised by the New Perspective, and indeed many conclusions associated with its leading scholars, remain influential.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My own connection with this discussion came in the form of my 1996 PhD dissertation on Paul's Letter to the Galatians,***** in which I argued that the so-called "old" and "new" perspectives were not mutually exclusive―indeed, that they were both correct, <i>though at different levels</i>: the New Perspective at the level of historical-critical exegesis, the Old Perspective at the level of theological contextualization, Lutheran and Reformed theological interpretations being <i>necessary corollaries</i> of what Paul wrote in his occasional responses to the situations in Galatia and Rome.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Michael Bird entered the fray during the height of the controversy over the New Perspective in Evangelical and Reformed circles with his 2007 work, <i>The Saving Righteousness of God</i>.****** When I first read the book the following year, I was delighted. Not only did he write with the express purpose of commending Wright's work to Reformed Christians; he also confirmed just about everything I had argued a decade before in my work at Dallas. In subsequent years Bird has been uncommonly prolific, writing both in the fields of New Testament (mostly in the Synoptic Gospels) and in exegetically-based Systematic Theology.******* Most recently he has collaborated with Wright in producing an enormously helpful, massive-yet-accessible, New Testament Introduction entitled <i>The New Testament in Its World</i>.********</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It was while in Dallas promoting this work that Bird met with my old friend, Darrell Bock, and recorded this podcast in which they discussed the controversy behind the New Perspective and laid out the issues as clearly as can be done. The whole podcast is informative and worth watching. But, in closing, I would like to highlight a couple of sections especially worth one's attention:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">(At 32:45) <b>Bird</b>: "Often I'm confronted with some rather zealous young seminary students who have been taught that the New Perspective is completely awful. And I'm usually able to disarm them by asking three simple questions. And the first question I ask them―you know that Paul says in Romans that "we believe a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." … I say, "What comes next? What's the opposite of justification by faith apart from works of the Law?" And they kind of think, uh, "We're justified by works or we're saved by our righteous deeds." The answer students usually give is personal, individual soteriology, how I get saved. Paul's answer is … "Or is God the God of the Jews only?" So the answer there is at least partly dealing with the issue that God's grace is limited to one particular people. So the issue is not just legalism. The issue is this national status of Israel and that God's grace is not restricted to them. The second text I love talking students through and that I take them to―I ask, "Was Christ cursed on the cross for us?" I say, "Why was Christ cursed on the cross?" We could say, "So we could be saved, that we could go to heaven." That's all great and true. But what does Paul say? Paul says the purpose of Christ's being cursed on the cross was so we could be redeemed and <i>that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles</i> … Paul's answer is <i>redemptive-historical</i>. And it's about bringing Gentiles into this Jewish family of faith, So for me that's another dimension I think we need to bring in and affirm in the New Perspective, that it is bringing in the discussion of ethnicity, the corporate element, the redemptive-historical element, that is usually missing.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">(At 35:08) <b>Bock</b>: The gospel was always designed, even from the point of Genesis 12, that Abraham and his seed would be blessed for the redemption of the world. When we actually ask why Genesis 12 is where it is―It's come after eleven chapters of devolution as a result of sin, that shows mankind has an immense need that only God can fix. And Abraham is the solution, and the blessing of the world through the <i>seed</i> of Abraham is the solution that Genesis 12 deposits and posits as the solution coming down the road.</span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Bird</b>: <i>And that's what's being fulfilled in Paul's doctrine of justification by faith</i>. This is the doctrine whereby God creates a new people with a new status and a new covenant as a foretaste of the new age. And that's what justification is when viewed as a comprehensive category; and it is … Paul's rationale to why we should have Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, worship together. This is the reason no one is asked to sit at the back of the church bus, because we're all one in Christ Jesus. Because we're all in Christ, we all share the Spirit. And this transcends the various cultural, religious, and ethnic divides that have usually been what's defined who's in and who's out.</span></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><span style="font-family: times;">*E. P. Sanders, <i>Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison Patterns of Religion </i>(Philadelphia; Fortress, 1977).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">**Cf. Wrede, <i>Paul</i>, trans. Edward Lumis (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1908) 123, 127.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">*** "The apostle's real adversary is the devout Jew, not only the mirror-image of his own past―though that, too―but as the reality of the religious man. The precise problem of the Jew was that he misunderstood the Law "as a summons to human achievement and therefore as a means to a righteousness of one's own." Ernst Käsemann, "Paul and Israel," in <i>New Testament Questions of Today</i>, trans. W. J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 184.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">****Cf. N. T. Wright, <i>Paul and His Recent Interpreters</i> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). For his treatment of the "Apocalyptic Paul" in its various forms, cf. 135-220.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">*****James R McGahey, "'No One Is Justified by Works of the Law' (Galatians 2:16a): The Nature and Rationale of Paul's Polemic Against 'Works of the Law' in the Epistle to the Galatians," PhD diss, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">******Michael F. Bird, <i>The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective</i> (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">*******Cf. esp. Bird, <i>Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction</i>, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">********N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, <i>The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians</i> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019).</span></p>James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.com0